^  -> 


LIBRARY 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 

RIVERSIDE 


ViaNlfl   d13HS 


LI3.WY 

UNlVERSlfi'  OF  CALIFORNIA 
RIVcRSiDE 


THE  DOUBLE  EDGE 
OF  LABOR'S  SWORD 

Discussion  and  Testimony 

on 

Socialism  and  Trade-Unionism 

before  the 

Commission  on  Industrial  Relations 
BY 

MORRIS  HILLQUIT 
SAMUEL  GOMPERS 
and   MAX  J.  HAYES 


Price,  25  Cents 


CHICAGO 

Socialist  Party,  National  Office 


THE  DOUBLE  EDGE 
OF  LABOR'S  SWORD 

Discussion  and  Testimony 

on 

Socialism  and  Trade-Unionism 

before  the 

Commission  on  Industrial  Relations 
BY 

MORRIS  ^ILLQUIT 
SAMUEL  GOMPERS 
and   MAX  J.  HAYES 


Price,  25  Gents 


CHICAGO 
Socialist  Party,  National  Office 


HS6 


CONTENTS 


PAGE 

Introduction 5 

First  Session: 

Aims  and  Methods  of  the  Socialist 
Movement     9 

Second  Session: 

Socialist  Attitude  Towards  Trade 
Unionism 35 

Third  Session: 

The  Aims  and  Methods  of  the 

American  Federation  of  Labor     ...      86 

Fourth  Session: 

The  Conflicts  between  Capital  and 
Labor 133 

Fifth  Session: 

Socialism  and  Trade-Unionism  ....    153 

Why  Victor  Berger  voted  against  that 

"Rider"  to  the  Sundry  Civil  Bill    .   .    191 


Digitized  by  tine  Internet  Arcliive 

in  2007  witli  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


littpV/www.arcliive.org/details/doubleedgeoflaboOOIiilliala 


INTRODUCTION 


On  the  23rd  day  of  August,  1912,  Congress  passed 
an  act  creating  a  commission  known  as  the  Commis- 
sion on  Industrial  Relations.  The  act  provided  among 
other  things  that  "the  Commission  shall  inquire  into 
the  general  condition  of  labor  in  the  principal  indus- 
tries of -the  United  States,  including  agriculture,  and 
especially  those  which  are  carried  on  in  corporate 
forms ;  into  existing  relation  between  employers  and 
employes  *  *  *  into  the  growth  of  associations  of 
employers  and  wage-earners  and  the  effect  of  such 
associations  upon  the  relations  between  employers  and 
employes  *  *  *  into  any  methods  which  have  been 
tried  in  any  state  or  in  foreign  countries  for  maintain- 
ing mutually  satisfactory  relations  between  employes 
and  employers  *  *  *.  The  Commision  shall  seek  to 
discover  the  underlying  causes  of  dissatisfaction  in 
the  industrial  situation  and  report  its  conclusions 
thereon." 

It  was  one  of  the  most  striking  measures  of  modern 
legislation  involving,  as  it  did,  an  official  recognition 
of  the  existence  of  a  general  and  chronic  industrial  un- 
rest and  representing  the  first  attempt  at  a  general 
stock-taking  of  industrial  conditions  and  relations  in 
the  United  States. 

The  act  specified  that  the  Commission  "shall  be 
composed  of  nine  persons,  to  be  appointed  by  the 
President  of  the  United  States,  by  and  with  the  advice 
and  consent  of  the  Senate;  not  less  than  three  of  whom 


shall  be  employers  of  labor  and  not  less  than  three  of 
whom  shall  be  representatives  of  organized  labor." 

On  June  26,  1913,  President  Wilson  named  the 
following  persons  as  members  of  the  Commissions. 
On  the  part  of  the  public:  Frank  P.  Walsh,  a  well- 
known  lawyer  of  Kansas  City,  Missouri,  to  serve  as 
President  of  the  Commission;  Professor  John  R.  Com- 
mons, the  noted  sociologist  of  Madison,  Wisconsin, 
and  Mrs.  J.  Borden  Harriman  of  New  York;  (_)n  the 
part  of  the  employers:  Frederick  A.  Delano,  railway 
president  of  Chicago,  Illinois ;  Harris  Weinstock,  mer- 
chant, author  and  social  worker,  of  Sacramento.  Cali- 
fornia, and  S.  Thurston  Ballard,  capitalist,  of  St. 
Louis,  Missouri.  On  the  part  of  organized  labor: 
John  B.  Lennon  and  James  O'Connell,  both  officers 
of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  and*  Austin 
B.  Garretson,  President  of  the  Order  of  Railway  Con- 
ductors. 

The  Commission  was  given  wide  powers,  including 
the  power  of  holding  public  hearings  in  all  parts  of 
the  United  States  and  compelling  the  attendance  of 
witnesses.  It  has  held  many  interesting  hearings  and 
has  brought  to  light  much  valuable  infomiation  on  the 
relations  and  struggles  between  the  employing  and  the 
working  classes  in  the  United  States.  But  the  hearing 
which  will  probably  remain  most  memorable  in  the 
annals  of  the  American  labor  movement  was  that  held 
in  the  City  of  New  York  on  May  21,  22  and  23,  1914, 
and  which  had  for  its  object  the  study  of  the  aims, 
methods  and  mutual  relations  of  the  main  divisions  of 
organized  labor.  The  Socialist  Party,  the  American 
Federation  of  Labor,  and  the  Industrial  Workers  of 
the  World,  were  each  requested  to  designate  spokes- 
men for  their  respective  organizations,  and  the  rep- 
resentatives so  chosen  were  as  follows:  For  the  So- 
cialist Party — Morris  Hillquit,  Chairman  of  its  Na- 
tional Committee;  for  the  American  Federation  of 
Labor — Samuel  Gompers,  its  President;  for  the  In- 


dustrial  Workers  of  the  World — Vincent  St.  John, 
its  Secretary-Treasurer.  Additional  witnesses  at  the 
hearing  were:  Max  S,  Hayes,  a  prominent  member 
of  the  Socialist  Party  as  well  as  of  the  American 
Federation  of  Labor;  Mr.  Joseph  Ettor,  a  representa- 
tive of  the  Industrial  Workers  of  the  World,  and  Mr. 
F.  G.  R.  Gordon,  a  former  Socialist,  who  appeared 
at  the  hearing  in  behalf  of  the  American  Federation 
of  Labor.  Mr,  Gordon's  "testimony"  was  brief  and 
had  practically  no  relation  to  the  subject  under  dis- 
cussion. The  testimony  of  Vincent  St,  John  and 
Joseph  Ettor  was  entirely  confined  to  the  aims  and 
methods  of  the  Industrial  Workers  of  the  World,  and 
contributed  little,  if  anything,  to  the  study  of  the  mu- 
tual relations  between  Socialism  and  trade  unionism  in 
the  United  States.  These  relations  were  treated  by 
Messrs.  Hillquit,  Gompers  and  Hayes,  and  their 
"testimony"  represents  the  most  exhaustive  discussion 
of  the  subject  ever  published.  For  the  first  time  au- 
thoritative spokesmen  of  the  two  great  divisions  of 
the  American  labor  movement,  the  political  and  the 
economic,  met  face  to  face  under  official  auspices  to 
compare  their  views,  aims  and  methods.  No  limits 
were  set  by  the  Commission;  the  "witnesses"  spoke 
frankly  and  freely,  without  restraint  or  reserve.  The 
proceedings  were  particularly  enlivened  by  the  mutual 
cross-examination  of  Messrs.  Hillquit  and  Gompers, 
which  occupied  the  better  part  of  the  hearing  and 
held  the  audience  in  unabated,  almost  spell-bound  at- 
tention from  start  to  finish.  It  was  not  a  hostile  en- 
counter, nor  was  it  purely  a  battle  of  wits.  On  the 
whole  it  was  an  earnest  search  for  the  truth  punc- 
tured now  and  then  by  good-natured  mutual  thrusts. 
Mr.  Samuel  Gompers,  as  one.  of  the  most  typical  rep- 
resentatives iof  the  old-line,  ;pure-and-simple  trade 
unionists  attempted  to  disclaim  any  connection,  phy:^i- 
cal  or  spiritual,  between  the  trade  union  movement  and 
the  Socialist  movement,  between  the  economic  and  the 


political  organizations  of  the  workers.  Mr.  Morris 
Hillquit,  taking  the  official  stand  of  the  Socialist  Party, 
endeavored  to  prove  the  identity  of  aims  and  interests 
of  both  divisions  of  the  labor  movement,  and  the  neces- 
sity of  their  mutual  co-operation  on  the  fields  of 
political  as  well  as  economic  battle.  The  numerous 
involuntary  concessions  made  by  Mr.  Gompers  on  his 
cross-examination  are  among  the  most  amusing  and 
significant  features  of  the  discussion. 

The  succeeding  pages  contain  a  stenographic  account 
of  the  "testimony"  and  cross-examination  of  Messrs. 
Hillquit,  Gompers  and  Hayes.  A  number  of  insignifi- 
cant corrections  have  been  necessitated  by  stenogra- 
pher's errors  and  by  occasional  lapses  or  loose  wording 
of  statements  on  the  part  of  witnesses.  But  these 
corrections  are  purely  verbal.  The  publishers  have 
been  careful  to  preserve  the  form  as  well  as  the  spirit 
and  substance  of  the  discussion  without  adding  or 
subtracting  anything  and  with  all  the  directness  and 
spontaneity  with  which  it  was  presented  before  the 
Commission. 

It  is  the  sincere  conviction  of  the  publishers  that 
the  reading  of  this  unique  discussion  will  contribute 
materially  to  a  better  understanding  between  the  So- 
cialists and  the  trade  unionists  of  the  country,  and 
this  booklet  is  published  for  the  equal  benefit  of  both. 

New  York,  September,  1914. 


FIRST    SESSION. 

Aims  and  Methods  of  the  Socialist 
Movement 

The  First  Session  was  held  in  the  City  Hall,  in  the 
City  of  New  York.  Mr.  Frank  P.  Walsh,  Chairman 
of  the  Commission,  presided,  and  the  following  mem- 
bers of  the  Commission  were  present,  besides  the 
chairman:  John  B.  Lennon,  Mrs.  J.  Borden  Harri- 
nian,  Austin  B.  Garretson,  James  O'Connell,  S.  Thurs- 
ton Ballard  and  Frederick  A.  Delano. 

Mr.  William  O.  Thompson,  counsel  to  the  Com- 
mission, conducted  the  examination. 

The  first  meeting  was  opened  at  lo  A.  M. 

Chairman  Walsh  :  The  Commission  will  please 
come  to  order.    Mr.  Thompson. 

Mr.  Thompson  :  Mr.  Chairman  and  members  of 
the  Commission :  In  the  Act  creating  this  Commis- 
sion you  are  directed  by  Congress,  among  other 
things,  to  inquire  into  the  existing  organizations 
of  labor,  and  also  into  their  effect  on  the  industrial 
situation.  In  obedience  to  that  direction,  we  have 
for  our  public  hearings,  in  the  next  two  days,  the 
subject  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor,  the 
Socialist  Party,  and  the  Industrial  Workers  of  the 
World.  These  have  been  selected  as  being  three 
representative  organizations  of  labor,  in  this  coun- 
try, and  we  have  thought  it  wise  to  hear  them 
together. 

In  the  hearing  on  this  subject  it  has  been  thought 
best  to  put  on  the  principal  representatives  of  the 
respective  parties,  who  may  state,  as  we  might  say, 

9 


their  platform ;  and  as  these  organizations  cover, 
as  we  know,  a  good  deal  of  the  same  field,  to  recall 
these  representatives  and  give  them  an  opportunity 
to  comment  upon  the  reasons  for  their  existence, 
which  may  call  for  some  comments  on  the  part  of 
the  other  parties.  It  is  the  desire,  as  I  understand, 
of  this  Commission,  to  permit  these  witnesses  this 
opportunity.  For  that  reason,  Mr.  Chairman,  1 
would  like  to  call  on  Mr.  Gompers  for  a  statement 
of  the  principles  and  purpose  of  the  American  Fed- 
eration of  Labor. 

Mr.  Gompers:  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of 
the  Commission :  I  have  not  heard  the  entire  state- 
ment of  Mr.  Thompson  as  to  the  procedure  con- 
templated in  the  special  investigation  that  is  about 
to  be  undertaken.  I  have  seen  statements  published 
in  the  public  press  as  to  the  nature  of  the  investiga- 
tion about  to  be  undertaken;  and  if  there  be  any 
proper  inferences  to  be  drawn  from  those  state- 
ments, it  seems  to  be  that  the  Federation  is  to  be 
made  the  subject  for  analysis  and  for  dissection. 
So  far  as  I  am  concerned,  as  the  President  of  the 
American  Federation  of  Labor,  I  have  no  hesitancy 
in  saying  that  we  welcome  any  attack  or  criticism 
or  abuse,  that  any  one  may  care  to  launch  against 
the  Americn  Federation  of  Labor;  and  I  shall  en- 
deavor then  to  answer  it.  I  am  free  to  say  this, 
now,  that  I  come  in  answer  to  the  subpoena  of  this 
Commission  with  the  intention  of  playing  the  game 
open  and  fair,  and  with  the  cards  upon  the  table. 
But  I  do  not  want  to  have  it  appear  upon  the  record 
that  I  have  introduced  matters  which  may  seem  to 
be  extraneous  to  the  investigation.  And  yet  these 
same  themes  are  the  subject  of  general  discussion 
among  the  opponents  of  the  American  Federation 
of  Labor,  those  who  do  not  understand,  and  those 
who  may  understand  it  and  have  some  peculiar  kink 
in   their  reasoning  powers,   and   consequently   are 

10 


scarcely  responsible  for  their  utterances  regarding 
the  American  Federation  of  Labor.  But  be  they 
as  they  may,  I  think  that  the  existing  organizations 
of  the  American  working  people  to-day  are  entitled 
to  know  what  we  are  officially  called  upon  to  meet. 
I  feel  that  it  is  a  matter  of  right  which  I  owe  to 
the  American  Federation  of  Labor,  an  organization 
which  has  been  in  existence  for  more  than  33  years, 
to  know  what  the  organization  has  to  meet  by  way 
of  criticism  or  antagonism  from  its  opponents.  As 
I  say,  I  may  not  have  the  right  to  bring  in  here 
matters  which,  unless  they  are  on  the  record, 
would  be  regarded  as  extraneous,  and  as  having 
been  simply  thrust  in  on  my  part.  And  I  have  no 
hesitancy  in  believing  that  the  opponents  of  the 
American  Federation  of  Labor  will  only  welcome 
the  opportunity  of  launching  all  their  attacks  and 
criticisms  against  us. 

Chairman  Walsh  :  I  will  try  to  reply  to  your 
suggestions,  Mr.  Gompers.  I  will  state,  as  Judge 
Thompson  started  out  to  say,  and  state  properly 
the  program  for  to-day : 

Morning  session :  Samuel  Gompers,  statement  of 
purposes  and  methods  of  the  American  Federation 
of  Labor,  forty  minutes, 

Morris  Hillquit,  statement  of  purposes  and  methods 
of  Socialist  Pa'rty,  forty  minutes. 

Vincent  St.  John,  statement  of  purposes  and 
■  methods  of  Industrial  Workers  of  the  World,  forty 
minutes. 

Afternoon  session:    Vincent  St.  John  (recalled). 

Criticism  of  the  other  organizations : 

Joseph  Ettor,  extension  of  Mr.  St.  John's  criticism, 
on  the  basis  of  practical  experience. 

F.  R.  G.  Gordon,  statement  dn  behalf  of  the  Amer- 
ican Federation  of  Labor. 

Friday,  morning  session:  Max  Hayes,  state- 
ment from  the  point  of  view  of  a  prominent  member 

11 


of  the  Scx:ialist  Party,  who  is  also  active  in  the  sup- 
port of  the  A.  F.  of  L, 

Joseph  W.  Sullivan,  statement  on  behalf  of  the 
American  Federation  of  Labor, 

Afternoon  session:  Morris  Hillquit,  Vincent  St. 
John,  Samuel  Gompers,  recalled  in  rebuttal. 

The  proposition  is  this,  Mr.  Gompers,  that  if  you 
haven't  already  been  informed  that  there  is,  of  course, 
a  difference  of  opinion,  not  only  among  the  various 
organizations  that  are  mentioned  and  called  here,  but 
there  is  a  lack  of  information  on  the  part  of  the 
public  as  to  the  aims  and  purposes  of  all  of  these  or- 
ganizations. Now,  the  Commission  has  attempted  to 
put  this  in  as  concise  and  good  a  form  as  they  possibly 
can,  to  develop  in  the  time  they  have  at  their  command, 
a  statement  as  to  the  aims  and  purposes  of  each.  You 
are  called  on  first,  as  I  understand  the  Committee  on 
these  public  hearings,  because  you  represent  this  old 
organization — what  might  be  called  the  standard  or- 
ganization of  labor  in  this  country,  and  inasmuch  as 
this  is  the  definite  organization,  the  Committee  thought 
well  to  let  you  make  your  statement  of  the  aims  and 
purposes,  together  with  these  gentlemen,  Mr.  Sulli- 
van and  Mr.  Gordon,  and  to  let  those  who  might  have 
criticisms  come  in  between  and  then  to  give  you  an 
opportunity  of  rebuttal.  Now,  whether  that  has  been 
wisely  or  properly  laid  out,  that  plan,  nevertheless, 
is  the  plan. 

Mr.  Gompers:  Mr.  Chairman,  pardon  me,  you 
say  I  am  permitted  forty  minutes  for  the  presenta- 
tion of  that  for  which  the  American  Federation  of 
Labor  stands..  I  have  not  had  any  previous  notice 
that  I  should  be  required  to  do  that,  and  it  is  not 
an  easy  matter  for  a  man  to  attempt  offhand  to  state 
before  an  official  body  the  aims  and  purposes  of  the 
American  Federation  of  Labor. 

Chairman  Walsh:  Well,  if  there  is  any  reason 
sufficient  to  you,  on  account  of  which  you  do  not 

12 


desire  to  be  heard,  or  if  the  rules  laid  down  by  the 
Commission  are  such  that  you  do  not  want  to  be 
heard  under  them,  of  course  we  will  excuse  you, 
though  we  do  not  like  to  do  it,  but  this  is  the  way 
we  have  laid  down  our  plans. 

Mr.  Gompers:  That  is  intended  as  a  curt  request 
for  me  to  retire? 

Chaii^man  Walsh  :  Why  certainly  not.  If  that 
sounded  curt  I  am  very  sorry,  as  it  was  not  so  in- 
tended. I  did  not  mean  to  be  curt.  I  tried  to  state 
my  proposition  in  a  business-like  and.  concise  way, 
and  we  would  be  delighted  to  have  your  views. 

Mr.  Gompers:  I  will  submit  to  the  Commission's 
order,  whatever  it  is. 

Chairman  Walsh  :   Take  the  chair,  then. 

Mr.  Thompson  :  I  would  say,  Mr.  Chairman,  that 
if  it  is  agreeable  to  Mr.  Gompers,  and  if  Mr.  St.  John 
and  Mr.  Morris  Hillquit  are  here,  we  may  hear  from 
them  first  and  give  Mr.  Gompers  the  opportunity  of 
collecting  his  data  on  that  subject. 

Mr.  Gompers  thereupon  left  the  stand,  and  the 
Commission  heard  Mr.  Vincent  St.  John,  Secretary- 
Treasurer  of  the  Industrial  Workers  of  the  World. 
Mr.  St.  John's  testimony  as  well  as  that  of  Mr.  Joseph 
Ettor,  who  was  heard  later,  have  no  direct  bearing  ori 
the  relations  between  Socialism  and  Trade-Unionism, 
and  have  therefore  been  omitted  from  this  volume. 

Mr.  Morris  Hillquit  was  called  as  the  next  wit- 
ness, and  testified  as  follows : 

Mr.  Thompson  :  For  the  purpose  of  the  record, 
will  you  kindly  give  us  your  name  and  address? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Morris  Hillquit,  246  West  139th 
Street,  New  York  City. 

Mr.  Thompson:   And  your  occupation? 

Mr.  Hillquit:   Lawyer. 

Mr.  Thompson  :  Are  you  a  member  of  the  So- 
cialist Party? 

Mr.  Hillquit:   I  am. 

13 


Mr.  Thompson":    What  is  the  name  of  the  party? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Socialist  Party  of  the  United 
States. 

Mr.  Thompson:  If  you  know,  how  long  has  that 
party  been  in  existence  as  a  party? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  In  its  present  form  and  under  its 
present  name,  since  1900. 

Mr.  Thompson  :Were  there  any  prior  organizations 
which  were  merged  into  the  party? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Yes,  sir.  There  was  the  Socialist- 
Labor  Party,  organized  in  1877;  there  was  the  Social- 
Democratic  Party,  organized  in  1898,  and  several  local 
organizations.  The  greater  part  of  the  Socialist- 
Labor  Party,  all  of  the  Social-Democratic  Party,  and 
some  independent  organizations  were  merged  in  the 
present  Socialist  Party. 

Mr.  Thompson  :  What  is  the  present  form,  Mr. 
Hillquit,  of  that  organization? 

Mr,.  Hillquit:  The  .Socialist  Party  is  a  political 
body,  consisting  of  state  organizations  within  each 
state  of  the  Union.  The  state  organizations  in 
turn  are  comprised  of  local  organizations,  county, 
city  or  town.  The  Socialist  Party  has  an  enrolled 
dues-paying  membership,  as  distinguished  from  other 
political  parties.  The  dues-paying  membership  of  the 
Party  at  the  present  time  comprises  about  115,000 
men  and  women. 

Mr.  Thompson:  What  form  of  control  or  govern- 
ment has  the  Party,  its  officers,  committees,  etc.? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  It  has  a  national  committee  com- 
posed of  representatives  from  each  state  organization, 
representation  being  based  on  dues-paying  member- 
ship. 

The  National  Committee  meets  in' session  once  a 
year,  and  elects  a  National  Executive  Committee  com- 
posed of  five  members. 

There  is  a  National  Secretary,  who  conducts  the 

14 


practical  business  of  the  Party  throughout  the  year, 
at  Chicago,  with  a  staff  of  assistants. 

Mr.  Thompson  :  This  Executive  Committee  of  five 
members  that  you  mentioned,  Mr.  Hillquit,  is  the 
committee  that  designated  you  as  the  representative 
official  of  the  Party  here? 

Mr.  Hillquit  :    It  is. 

Mr.  Thompson  :  What,  first,  are  the  powers  of 
the  larger  committee,  and  next,  the  powers  of  those 
smaller  committees  and  of  the  officers? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  The  National  Committee  practi- 
cally acts  as  a  convention  of  the  Party  between  regu- 
lar nominating  conventions.  It  meets  once  a  year, 
receives  reports  of  officers,  lays  out  plans  of  work  for 
the  coming  year,  elects  the  executive  officers,  and 
recommends  amendments  to  the  Constitution  of  the 
Party. 

The  National  Executive  Committee  is  practically 
vested  with  the  powers  of  the  National  Committee 
between  sessions.  It  meets  at  frequent  intervals, 
about  once  in  every  two  or  three  months,  and  between 
meetings  transacts  business  by  correspondence. 

The  National  Committee,  as  well  as  the  National 
Executive  Committee,  and  the  National  Secretary,  are 
subject  to  directions  of  the  membership  expressed  by 
referendum  from  time  to  time. 

Mr.  Thompson  :  Has  the  Socialist  Party  a  con- 
stitution ? 

Mr.  Hillquit  :    It  has. 

Mr.  Thompson:   A  written  constitution? 

Mr.  Hillquit:    Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Thompson:    Have  you  got  a  copy  of  it? 

Mr.  Hillquit:    I  have. 

Mr.  Thompson  :  Would  you  mind  filing  it  with 
the  Commission? 

Mr.  Hillquit:    Not  at  all. 

(The  Constitution  and  By-Laws  were  marked 
"Hillquit,  Exhibit  i.") 

15 


Mr.  Thompson:  Mr.  Hillquit,  I  would  like  you  to 
state  in  your  own  way  the  reason,  as  you  see  it,  for 
the  existence  of  the  Socialist  Party  and  its  purposes 
and  plans. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  I  will  start  out  with  the  purposes 
and  plans  first,  and  follow  up  with  the  reasons  for 
its  existence  as  I  see  them. 

The  object  of  the  Socialist  Party  and  of  the  So- 
cialist movement  may  be  summarized  in  a  few  words — 
the  nationalization  of  the  industries.  The  Socialist 
Party  believes  that  the  principal  and  most  important 
industries  of  the  country,  such  upon  which  the  life 
and  welfare  of  the  community  depend,  should  be 
owned,  managed,  and  controlled  not  by  individuals, 
or  private  corporations,  for  their  personal  benefit  and 
profit  and  without  regard  to  public  welfare,  but  that 
they  should  be  conducted  as  a  social  function,  prim- 
arily for  the  benefit  of  the  community,  by  responsible 
agencies  of  the  people  organized  for  that  purpose. 

Concretely  stated,  Socialism  stands  for  the  col- 
lective ownership  of  the  principal  tools,  sources  and 
resources  of  wealth  production. 

When  I  say  collective  ownership,  I  do  not  mean 
by  that  national  ownership  of  all  industries  in  the 
country.  The  Socialists  would  abolish  private,  irre- 
sponsible ownership  and  would  substitute  social 
ownership  in  such  form  as  is,  in  each  case,  best 
adapted  to  a  given  industry.  For  instance,  we  advo- 
cate national  ownership  of,  say,  interstate  railroads, 
telephones,  telegraphs  and  other  means  of  interstate 
communication  and  transportation.  We  may  also 
conceive  the  propriety  of  national  ownership  and  man- 
agement of  mines,  or  of  such  industries  as  are 
already  organized  on  a  national  scale,  such,  for 
instance,  as  the  great  trustified  industries  of  the 
country.  We  may,  on  the  other  hand,  conceive  of 
certain  industries  wholly  located  within  one  state 
and  best  managed  by  the  state  government. 

16 


Then,  there  is  the  large  area  of  municipal  indus- 
tries, such  as  street  cars,  water  works  and  gas  works, 
which  should  be  operated,  and  could  be  operated 
most  economically  and  to  the  Lest  advantage,  by  the 
city. 

We  may  also  conceive  of  certain  other  industries 
so  unorganized,  and  perhaps  unorganizable  in  their 
nature,  as  to  be  incapable  even  of  municipal  opera- 
tion. Such  industries,  small  industries,  might  be  con- 
ducted by  co-operative  groups,  under  certain  govern- 
ment, supervision  and  control,  for  the  protection  of 
the  workers  and  consumers  alike. 

The  system  of  Socialism,  as  we  understand  it,  does 
not  necessarily  exclude  the  private  ownership  and 
management  of  purely  individual  industries,  such  as 
the  various  arts  and  crafts,  and  other  industries  not 
based  upon  the  exploitation  of  labor,  but  purely  on 
personal  efforts. 

Now,  this  Socialist  program  is  by  no  means  an 
arbitrary  or  ingenious  device  of  a  new  social  scheme. 
It  is  nothing  but  an  attempt  at  the  solution  of  certain 
social  problems  which  have  arisen  but  recently,  and 
to  which,  the  Socialists  believe,  it  is  the  only  answer. 

I  suppose  the  Commission  here,  in  going  over  its 
very  large  and  interesting  task,  has  come  across  a 
number  of  social  problems  and  social  evils,  and  one 
of  its  objects  is  to  find  suitable  remedies  for  them. 

That  is  precisely  what  the  Socialists  have  been  doing 
for  the  last  half  a  century,  and  very  few  persons  real- 
ize that  the  social  problems  we  are  encountering  are 
new ;  that  they  have  arisen  within  the  last  century, 
and  that  they  require  a  solution  such  as  would  grow 
out  from  their  very  nature. 

The  Socialists  find  that  all  or  most  of  the  indus- 
trial, political,  and  largely  also  social  problems  of  the 
day  are  due  to  the  private  ownership  of  the  tools  and 
other  instruments  of  wealth  production,  and  that  these 
problems  have  arisen  with  the  system  of  private  owner- 

17 


ship  of  the  social  tool.  Here,  again,  the  general  con- 
ception that  this  is  a  condition  that  has  confronted 
mankind  practically  always  is  entirely  erroneous. 

The  point  which  I  wish  to  make,  and  which  is 
important  for  a  comprehension  of  the  Socialist  philos- 
ophy, is  this:  The  conditions  of  a  century  ago  or 
more  do  not  exist  to-day.  Wealth  is  produced  dif- 
ferently. In  olden  times  wealth  was  produced  on  an 
individual  basis.  That  is,  it  was  produced  by  means 
of  simple,  inexpensive,  individual  tools.  The  workers 
or  wealth  producers  were  mostly  independent  mechan- 
ics who  did  not  need  large  capital,  machinery,  or 
factories  for  their  work.  They  depended  largely  on 
their  individual  skill.  They  required  a  small  tool, 
which  they  possessed.  They  worked  in  a  small  work- 
shop or  in  their  homes.  They  produced  the  entire 
commodity  from  beginning  to  the  end.  They  worked 
for  a  specific  consumer;  they  suited  his  tastes.  The 
commodity,  when  produced,  was  their  own  in  every 
sense  of  the  term,  legally,  as  well  as  morally,  and 
the  question  of  division  of  the  product  could  not  pos- 
sibly arise  under  such  circumstances.  There  was  no 
division  of  the  product.  The  product  rightfully, 
logically,  belonged  to  the  producer.  Then,  within  the 
last  century,  imperceptibly  and  steadily  a  tremendous 
change,  amounting  to  a  veritable  revolution,  occurred 
in  our  methods  of  producing  wealth.  We  are  all 
familiar  with  it.  The  individual  tool  underwent  a 
gradual  evolution.  It  developed  into  the  more  in- 
volved, complex  tool,  then  into  the  primitive  machine, 
until  by  slow  stages  it  reached  the  condition  of  the 
modem  huge  machine,  propelled  by  steam  or  elec- 
tricity, and  doing  the  work  of  thousands  of  hands. 

Now,  this  change  necessarily  entailed  a  number  of 
corresponding  changes.  In  the  first  place,  a  machine 
requires  a  factory  for  its  housing.  It  requires  it  on 
account  of  its  great  bulk;  and  it  requires  it  also  on 
account  of  the  fact  that  a  machine  in  its  essence,  i-ro- 

18 


duces  a  mere  particle  of  the  product,  instead  of  the 
entire  product.  So  that,  in  order  to  have  the  whole 
product,  a  set  of  machines  is  always  required.  A  set 
of  machines,  on  the  other  hand,  can  only  he  economi- 
call}'^  maintained  if  operated  by  a  large  number  of 
employees,  and  if  it  produces  large  quantities  of  prod- 
ucts. So  that  the  factory  began  to  congregate  large 
numbers  of  individual  workers  under  its  roof. 
Gradually  the  independent  mechanic  or  artisan 
of  old  times  lost  his  independence.  Gradually 
the  worker  drifted  into  the  factory.  Gradually  he 
became  a  mere  cog  in  the  wheel  instead  of  being  the 
principal  factor.  It  was  no  more  a  question  of  indivi- 
dual skill  or  ability  on  his  part.  In  order  to  work,  he 
must  have  the  modern  instruments  of  production. 
He  cannot  work  unless  he  uses  modern  machinery, 
and  he  cannot  own  modern  machinery.  He  cannot 
own  it,  first,  because  it  represents  a  very  large  outlay 
of  capital.  It  means  not  only  the  purchase  of  one 
machine  but  of  a  number  of  machines,  and  it  pre- 
supposes a  factory  and  raw-  material.  Besides,  if 
the  worker  could  own  the  machine,  that  would  not 
help  him.  Suppose  you  take  an  individual  worker 
to-day  and  give  him  one  of  the  great  modern  ma- 
chines, he  would  still  be  an  industrial  fraction.  All  he 
could  do  would  be  to  produce  one  uniform  particle 
of  some  commodity,  meaningless  in  itself. 

The  transformation  means  that  we  have  passed  from 
individualism  in  production  to  socialized  production. 
In  other  words,  the  worker  has  become  a  social  ser- 
vant, as  the  machine  has  become  a  social  tool,  and  the 
factory  a  social  workshop. 

In  keeping  with  this  change,  it  would  have  been 
logical,  just  and  equitable  to  transform  the  ownership 
of  the  machine  into  social  ownership.  In  other  words, 
if  society,  by  this  process  of  industrial  evolution,  has 
deprived  i,ooo  individual  workmen  of  i,ooo  individual 
tools  by  which  they  have  been  in  the  habit  of  making 

19 


a  living  for  themselves,  and  has  substituted  for  those 
1,000  individual  tools,  say,  ten  great  machines,  to 
be  operated  by  the  same  1,000  men,  the  equitable 
arrangement  would  have  been  to  place  these  1,000 
men,  properly  organized,  in  possession  of  the  com- 
plexity of  new  machines  taking  the  place  of  the  for- 
mer tools,  and  to  allow  them  to  continue  operating 
them  collectively   for  their  own  uses  and  purposes. 

The  evolution,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  took  a  differ- 
ent direction.  While  the  methods  of  production  be- 
came social,  and  the  workers  tecame  social  servants, 
the  ownership  of  the  machine  remained  individual.  It 
drifted  into  the  hands  of,  say,  a  lucky  mechanic  who, 
for  some  reason  or  other  was  enabled  to  make  the 
first  start,  or  perhaps  into  those  of  a  person  who  never 
had  anything  in  common  with  the  industrial  process 
at  all,  but  happened  to  have  the  capital  to  secure  the 
new  machine  and  to  equip  the  factory  to  work  in. 

This  separation  of  function  and  ownership  has  re- 
sulted in  the  creation  of  economic  classes,  and  there 
is  something  which,  I  believe,  every  social  investigator 
and  every  social  worker  should  bear  in  mind  first  of 
all,  the  comparatively  recent  origin  of  social  and  eco- 
nomic classes  in  the  United  States. 

If  you  go  back  to  the  period  before  the  introduc- 
tion of  modem  machinery,  there  practically  were  no 
permanent  economic  class  divisions  in  the  United 
States.  There  were  those  that  were  better  off  than 
others,  but  fixed  and  permanent  economic  classes  did 
not   exist. 

The  helper  or  apprentice  of  a  century  ago  always 
considered  his  dependent  position  transitory,  and  he 
had  a  good  right  to,  for,  after  his  apprenticeship  was 
over,  he  could  set  up  for  himself,  and  when  land  was 
abandoned  and  practically  free,  he  could  well  go  out 
and  take  up  farming.  However,  with  the  introduc- 
tion of  machinery  the  laborer  to-day,  with  rare  ex- 
ceptions, is  a  laborer  forever,  and  he  breeds  and  pro- 

20 


duces  a  generation  of  laborers.  A  workingman  in 
several  thousands  may  succeed  in  breaking  into  the 
ranks  of  wealth,  but  that  is  always  an  exception. 

The  vast  majority  of  workers  receive  just  enough 
to  sustain  their  lives,  perhaps  a  little  less  occasionally ; 
and  they  can  never  expect  to  save  up  sufficient  capital 
to  undertake  independent  work  with  modern  methods 
and  on  a  modern  scale.  And,  furthermore,  it  is 
physically  quite  impossible  for  every  worker  to  be 
a  factory  owner,  for  there  must  be  somebody  in  the 
factory  also  to  operate  the  machine.  Consequently^ 
for  a  majority  of  the  workers,  the  condition  of  de- 
pendence has  become  permanent  and  hereditary.  We 
have  for  the  first  time  in  our  history  a  fixed  and 
hereditary  working  class.  And  by  the  same  token, 
we  have  permanently  with  us  a  capitalist  class. 

When  I  speak  of  a  capitalist  class,  I  mean  the 
class  of  men  or  women  who  own  the  tools  of  pro- 
duction which  the  workers  need  for  their  work.  They 
are  capitalists  only  to  the  extent  to  which  they  own 
such  tools  of  production.  Their,  ownership  may  be 
direct  or  indirect;  it  may  be  represented  by  stocks  or 
bonds,  but  it  is  still  ownership.  A  capitalist  may 
even  be  a  hard  worker,  but  that  does  not  change  the 
situation.  If  a  capitalist  is  an  active  worker  in  his 
industry  he  earns  only  as  much  as  his  work  is  worth. 
But  inasmuch  as  he  derives  also  a  workless  income, 
an  income  from  the  ownership  of  the  machinery  of 
production,  whether  it  be  a  railroad  or  a  mine  or 
anything  else,  to  that  extent  he  is  a  capitalist,  and 
in  that  sense  the  capitalists  are  a  permanent  and  here- 
ditary class.  Here  also  there  are  exceptions.  There 
are  the  capitalists'  sons  who  dissipate  their  fortunes,  ^ 
and  perhaps  sink  to  the  level  of  the  laborer,  but  these 
are  likewise  the  exceptions,  and  as  the  fortunes  grow 
larger  the  relapses  become  rarer  and  rarer.  The  capi- 
talist class  tends  to  become  permanent  and  hereditary 
just  as  much  as  the  laboring  class. 

21 


We  claim  that  the  origin  and  existence  of  those 
two  classes  account  for  most  of  the  evils  for  which 
we  seek  remedies.  And  that  for  the  following  rea- 
sons: The  ecenomic  interest  of  the  two  classes  are 
opposed  to  each  other;  they  are  antagonistic.  By 
that  I  do  not  mean  that  there  always  exists  a  per- 
sonal hostility  between  the  worker  and  the  employer. 
TTieir  relations  may  be  very  friendly,  very  cordial, 
but  their  interests  are  of  necessity  opposed  to  ^ach 
other.  The  capitalist  deriving  this  income  from 
profits,  that  is,  from  the  portion  of  the  product  which 
goes  to  him  by  virtue  of  his  ownership  of  the  means 
of  production,  and  the  worker  receiving  wages,  which 
means  that  part  of  the  product  which  the  capitalist 
leaves  to  him  after  deducting  his  own  share,  it  is 
natural  that  the  capitalist  will  always  endeavor  to 
make  his  share  of  the  product  as  large  as  possible, 
and  the  worker  likewise. 

.  The  capitalist  is  in  business  for  profits.  The  worker 
is  in  business  for  wages.  Each  depends  upon  a  share 
of  the  same  general  product.  The  smaller  the  wages 
under  normal  circumstances,  the  larger  the  profits, 
and  the  smaller  the  profits  the  larger  the  wages. 

So  we  have  this  economic  conflict  which  expresses 
itself  in  a  variety  of  ways.  It  works  under  the  sur- 
face; it  is  not  even  always  conscsiously  perceived  by 
the  workers  or  the  capitalists.  If  you  tell  some 
workers  to-day  that  their  interests  are  opposed  to 
those  of  the  employer,  they  will  say,  "No,  they  are  not. 
They  are  perfectly  harmonious."  At  the  same  time, 
during  their  work,  they  will  instinctively  act  on  the 
opposite  assumption.  They  will  try  to  conserve  their 
labor  power,  the  sole  source  of  their  living.  They 
will  strive  to  secure  a  raise  of  a  dollar  or  two.  or  as 
much  as  they  can.  They  will  bicker  with  their  employer 
at  all  times,  and  their  employer  with  them.  It  may 
all  be  done  in  a  good-natured  way,  but  there  is  the 
unconscious  manifestation  of  the  class  struggle.  Some- 

22 


times  it  will  flare  up;  there  will  be  a  strike,  or  there 
will  be  a  lockout;  sometimes  it  will  assume  a  very 
violent  character,  such,  for  instance,  as  the  present 
labor  struggles  in  Colorado.  Bpt  all  these  manifesta- 
tions are  simply  different  forms  and  diiferent  degrees 
of  the  struggle.  It  is  always  the  struggle  for  economic 
advantages  between  the  employer  and  the  employee, 
whose  interests  are  opposed  to  each  other. 

We  claim,  then,  that  this  class  struggle  is  at  the 
bottom  of  the  greatest  number  of  our  present  indus- 
trial problems,  and  we  claim  that  this  problem  cannot 
be  solved  unless  we  abolish  the  very  system  which 
has  produced  it.  We  may  preach  harmony  between 
employers  and  employees,  or  we  may  have  organiza- 
tions especially  formed  for  the  promotion  of  such 
harmony,  such,  for  instance,  as  the  National  Civic 
Federation,  but,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  so  long  as  the 
economic  interests  of  the  two  classes  remain  con- 
flicting, so  long  will  no  actual  harmony  exist  between 
them. 

The  Socialists  claim  that  by  abolishing  the  system 
of  private  ownership  in  the  instruments  and  tools  of 
production,  and  by  substituting  for  it  a  system  of 
collective  ownership,  the  classes  and  class  distinctions 
'  and  class  antagonisms  will  disappear,  and  that  other- 
wise they  cannot.  If  you  take  all  other  problems 
which  are  known  as  special  industrial  problems,  such 
as  the  problem  of  child  labor,  or  the  problem  of  woman 
labor,  you  find  in  them  an  application  of  the  same 
theory.  So  long  as  the  modern  machinery  makes  the 
labor  of  women  and  children  profitable,  and  so  long 
as  it  is  in  the  interest  of  the  employer  to  get  his  labor 
as  cheap  as  possible,  and  so  long  as  the  workers  them- 
selves are  not  paid  sufficiently  to  maintain  their 
families  in  decent  comfort,  so  long  will  child  labor 
and  cheap  woman  labor  prevail.  Some  restrictions, 
some  mitigations  of  the  evil  are  possible,  but  the  root 
of  it  is  in  the  private  ownership  of  the  machine  by 

23 


the  individual  capitalist,  and  will  remain  so  long  as 
the  system  prevails. 

I  could  go  over  the  list  of  all  other  social  prob- 
lems. I  could  take  up  the  question  of  the  unemployed, 
for  instance,  and  bring  that  back  to  the  capitalist 
system.  Under  normal  and  rational  economic  condi- 
tions there  should  be  no  unemployment  in  the  United 
States.  For,  what  does  unemployment  mean?  It 
is  not  that  we  do  not  stand  in  need  or  that  we  have 
a  superfluity  of  commodities — too  much  food  or  too 
much  clothing  or  furniture,  and  that  for  this  reason 
we  cannot  allow  our  entire  working  population  to 
continue  working.  We  still  need  all  that  their  work 
can  produce.  There  are  millions  of  citizens  who  stand 
in  need  of  food,  clothing,  shelter,  furniture,  books, 
and  so  on,  but  we  do  not  produce  them,  although  we 
have  the  facilities  to  do  so.  We  have  the  natural  re- 
sources for  it.  We  have  the  requisite  skill  for  it, 
and  w.e  have  millions  of  workers  ready  and  eager  to 
do  the  work  required  for  their  own  sustenance.  But 
the  present  system  of  production  is  not  based  upon 
social  needs.  It  is  not  a  social  function.  It  is  a  case 
where  a  number  of  individuals  manufacture  for  profit 
in  a  haphazard  fashion.  They  produce  a  certain 
quantity ;  they  employ  a  certain  number  of  men ;  ihey 
employ  them  for  as  many  hours  a  day  as  they  can 
exact  from  them,  and  they  are  guided  by  the  require- 
ments of  a  market  which  is  made  by  the  ability  of 
men  to  pay  for  what  they  need,  not  by  what  they 
need.  Consequently,  under  the  capitalist  system,  there 
always  remains  an  army  of  unemployed  workers. 
Some  of  them  are  unemployed  temporarily,  others 
become  permanently  unemployed,  others  lose  the 
capacity  for  work  by  long  idleness,  others  become  old 
and  disabled,  and  so  we  get  the  hobo  and  tramp  and 
the  unemployable. 

We  could  even  take  the  problem  of  crime  and  vice, 
and  we  would  find  that  a  good  deal  of  it,  by  no  means 

24 


all  of  it,  may  be  brought  home  directly  to  the  present 
economic  system. 

The  Socialists  say  the  only  way  to  cure  all  these 
evils  and  maladjustment  is  by  placing  the  ownership 
of  the  means  of  production  in  accord  with  its  man- 
ner of  their  operation.  In  other  words,  making  the 
process  of  wealth  production  social  instead  of  in- 
dividual ;  making  it  serve  the  people  instead  of  serv- 
ing the  capitalists;  producing  for  use  instead  of  pro- 
ducing for  profit. 

The  Socialists  do  not  contemplate  a  complete 
change  of  the  system  in  one  day.  We  fjilly  realize 
that  social  evolution  is  gradual ;  that  social  institutions 
are  products  of  historical  growth  and  development;  • 
that  no  system  of  society  can  be  changed  in  a  day 
just  because  a  certain  number  of  individuals  think  it 
ought  to  be  changed;  and,  for  that  reason,  the  So- 
cialists work  towards  the  gradual  introduction  of  the 
Socialist  system,  and  also  with  a  view  to  steady  and 
gradual  improvement  of  present  social  conditions, 
particularly  the  conditions  of  the  workers. 

The  current  of  Socialist  reform  aims  in  two  direc- 
tions. We  strive  for  the  gradual  socialization  of  the 
ownership  of  industries.  We  advocate  national  and 
municipal  ownership  of  certain  industries  to-day,  and 
we  also  advocate  every  measure  calculated  to  improve 
the  condition  of  the  workers.  Such,  for  instance,  as 
better  wages,  shorter  hours,  abolition  of  child  labor, 
state  and  national  insurance  of  the  workers  against 
old  age,  sickness,  disability,  and  so  on. 

And  in  doing  that,  we  are  guided  by  a  dual  con- 
sideration. In  the  first  place  the  immediate  benefits 
of  the  working  class  are  not  to  be  neglected;  they 
must  be  recognized.  It  would  be  poor  policy,  if  noth- 
ing worse,  to  say  to  the  ten  or  twelve  million  of 
industrial  workers:  "Why,  if  you  men  and  women 
will  continue  suffering  and  working  for  starvation 
wages   and   continue  crippling  your  children   in   the 

25 


factories,  morally  and  physically;  if  you  will  be  patient 
enough  for  another  generation  or  so.  a  better  social 
system  will  be  introduced.  But  you  must  wait  and 
suffer  in  the  meantime."  The  workers  of  to-day  are 
entitled  to  relief  to-day,  and  to  as  much  of  it  a.';  they 
possibly  can  secure. 

On  the  other  hand,  we  also  know  that  in  order  to 
bring  about  the  ultimate  and  radical  change  which 
the  Socialists  propose,  it  will  require  a  better  class 
of  workers ;  a  class  of  workers  physically  better  fitted, 
mentally  better  trained,  and  politically  and  economi- 
cally better  organized.  In  other  words,  we  assume 
that  Socialism,  as  any  other  proposed  change,  politi- 
cal, social  or  economic,  can  only  be  brought  about 
when  the  conditions  are  ripe  for  it  and  when  the  men 
are  ripe  for  it,  and  when  the  machinery  for  the  ac- 
complishment of  the  transformation  is  properly  or- 
ganized. We  do  not  expect  the  capitalists  to  arise 
one  fine  morning  and  to  say:  "After  all,  we  have 
considered  the  situation,  and  have  come  to  the  con- 
clusion that  we  have  been  unjust  and  iniquitous.  We 
now  abdicate  our  political  and  economic  power,  and  we 
will  turn  over  our  industries  to  the  collectivity  of  the 
nation."  We  expect  that  Socialism  will  be  introduced 
when  a  majority,  or  well-nigh  a  majority,  of  the 
population  is  ready  to  do  so,  and  when  it  has 
power  enough — including  political  power — to  force 
that  change, — just  as  every  other  social  reform  is 
introduced.  So  that  the  practical  program  of  Social- 
ism, or  the  practical  problem  before  the  Socialists 
is  to  increase  their  numbers  sufficiently  to  secure  that 
power.  They  expect  to  increase  their  numbers  prin- 
cipally through  accretions  from  that  part  of  the  popu- 
lation who  are  interested  in  their  proposed  change, 
and  who  would  be  economically  benefitted  by  it,  in 
other  words,  by  accretions  from  the  working  class. 
And  for  this  reason,  also,  the  Socialists  have  a  direct 
motive  in  striving  to  elevate  the  physical  and  mental 

26 


conditions  of  the  workers.  If  you  take  a  worker  who 
is  badly  underpaid  and  underfed,  overworked  and  ill- 
housed,  you  cannot  expect  him  to  develop  a  social 
idealism.  You  cannot  expect  him  to  grasp  a  social 
philosophy,  or  to  develop  the  mental  independence, 
and  the  courage  to  battle  for  a  cause  and  a  principle 
more  or  less  idealistic. 

The  worker  who  may  be  interested  in  such  a  move- 
ment is  the  one  who  has  some  leisure,  some  time  ,to 
read,  to  study,  to  think,  and  to  cultivate  the  fine  sides 
of  life.  We  find  in  the  Socialist  movement  here,  as 
well  as  everywhere  else,  that  our  main  support  comes 
from  the  better  situated  and  more  intelligent  part 
of  the  workers.  We  do  not  mean  to  say  by  that  we 
encourage  a  class  distinction  of  workers,  but  there 
is  a  certain  stratum  of  the  working  class  which  has 
been  exploited  to  siich  an  extent  that  it  has  fallen 
below  the  level  of  average  working-class  culture  or 
intellect.  And  that  class,  the  slum — proletariat,  so- 
called,  is  rarely  accessible  to  the  teachings  of  So- 
cialism or  of  any  similar  movement.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  better  situated  and  more  intelligent  workers 
constitute  the  bulk  of  the  Socialist  Party  members  and 
voters,  here  and  abroad. 

The  Socialist  Party  thus  has  every  reason  to  en- 
courage and  support  the  economic  organizations  and 
the  struggles  of  the  labor  movement  in  all  its  forms. 
It  does  so  in  this  country,  it  does  so  in  every  other 
country.  It  does  so  for  the  reason  that  it  realizes  the 
economic  organization  of  labor  is  the  main  prop  (9i 
the  worker  under  the  present  conditions ;  that  it  serves 
very  largely  to  raise  the  standards  of  the  worker's 
life  in  every  direction,  and  to  make  it  better  and 
healthier  and  happier.  It  supports,  for  similar  rea- 
sons, the  co-operative  movement  of  the  working  class, 
and  it  supports  every  other  radical  reform  movement 
based  upon  actual  economic  needs,  and  aiming  at 
actual  economic   improvement. 

27 


The  Socialist  platform,  which  sets  forth  the  aims, 
ultimate  and  immediate,  of  the  Socialist  Party,  con- 
tains a  large  number  of  what  we  call  "immediate 
demands,"  that  is,  practical  propositions  for  immedi- 
ate reform. 

Mr.  Thompson:  I  would  like  to  ask  you,  Mr. 
Hillquit,  a  question  or  two  right  there. 

Mr.  Hillquit  :  Yes,  go  ahead. 

Mr^  Thompson  :  In  reference  to  the  present 
method,  or  present  industrial  situation  of  the  workers, 
is  the  program  of  the  Socialist  Party  limited  to  such 
pronouncements  as,  say,  a  program  of  legislation  for 
the  national  and  state  legislators?  Has  it  in  addition 
to  that  any  other  concrete  machinery  or  organization 
for  the  carrying  out  of  immediate  redress  in  indus- 
trial matters? 

Mr,  Hillquit  :  Yes,  we  have  the  pronounced  views 
of  the  Party  on  these  various  problems  contained, 
not  only  in  the  platform,  but  in  a  number  of  other 
resolutions  and  similar  instruments.  The  practical 
instruments  for  the  carrying  out  of  our  program  are 
as  follows :  In  the  first  place,  we  have  in  the  national 
office  of  the  Party,  an  Information  Department,  con- 
sisting of  the  head  of  the  department,  and  certain 
assistants,  whose  duty  it  is  to  assist  all  elected  members 
of  our  Party  in  city  councils  and  state  assemblies,  in 
practical  matters.  For  instance,  a  new  Socialist  coun- 
cilman may  be  elected  in  some  town  for  the  first  time. 
Spme  measures  will  come  up  before  the  city  council, 
and  he  will  write  to  the  Information  Department  and 
inquire :  "What  do  you  think  of  this  measure,  or 
what  stand  do  ypu  think  I  should  take,  and  what 
should  I  propose  on  this  or  that  question,  in  con- 
formity with  the  Socialist  program,"  and  he  will 
receive  suggestions  and  information,  and,  perhaps, 
model  bills  to  be  introduced,  or  model  ordinances. 

Mr.   Thompson  :    Are   the   suggestions   that  may 
28 


be  given  to  him  made  obligatory  upon  him  by  the] 
Party  platform? 

Mr.  Hillquit  :  No,  they  are  purely  voluntary,  just 
in  the  nature  of  suggestion  and  advice,  nothing  more. 

Mr.  Thompson  :  Relating  particularly  now  to  the 
industrial  organization  of  the  workers? 

Mr.  Hillquit:    Yes. 

Mr.  Thompson  :  Has  the  Socialist  Party  a  program 
or  organization  for  dealing  with  them  as  actually  en- 
gaged in  industry,  for  instance,  in  the  shops  and 
factories  ? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  No,  we  don't  engage  in  the  eco- 
nomic struggles  of  the  workers,  except  where  such 
struggles  assume  a  political  or  general  aspect.  We 
do  not  consider  it  part  of  our  mission,  function  or 
power  to  interfere  with  the  details  of  the  economic 
labor  organizations,  in  the  shop  or  in  the  unions.  We 
would  consider  that  meddling.  If  the  relation  of 
the  Socialist  Party  to  the  economic  labor  organiza- 
tions is  of  interest  to  you,  I  have  here  a  brief  resolu- 
tion adopted  by  the  convention  of  the  National 
Socialist  Party  in  191 2,  and  if  you  wish  me  to,  I  will 
read  it  to  you. 

Mr.  Thompson:   Will  you  read  it? 

Mr.  Hillquit:    It  is  very  short. 

Mr.  Thompson  :    I  think  we  might  hear  it,  then. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  It  is  not  a  page  (reading)  :  "Poli- 
tical organizations  and  economic  organizations  are 
alike  necessary  in  the  struggle  for  working  class 
emancipation.  The  most  harmonious  relations  should 
exist  between  the  two  great  forces  of  the  working 
class  movement — the  Socialist  Party  and  the  labor 
unions.  The  labor  movement  of  the  United  States 
has  of  recent  years  made  marvelous  progress  in  all 
directions.  It  is  steadily  increasing  in  numbers,  and 
has  reached  trades  and  industries  which  were  before 
unorganized.  It  has  in  many  instances  concentrated 
its  power  and  increased  in  efficiency  by  the  amalga- 

29 


mation  of  related  trades  into  federations  and  indus- 
trial unions.  Many  unions  have  opened  their  meet- 
ing before  adjournment  to  the  discussion  of  vital 
social  and  political  problems  of  the  working  class,  and 
have  repudiated  the  demoralizing  policies  represented 
by  the  National  Civic  Federation.  The  organized 
workers  are  rapidly  developing  an  enlightened  militant 
class  consciousness.  The  reality  of  this  progress  is 
attested  by  the  increasing  virulence  with  which  the 
organized  capitalists  wage  their  war  against  the 
unions.  This  improved  economic  organization  is  not 
a  matter  of  abstract  theory,  but  grows  out  of  the 
experience  of  the  wage  workers  in  the  daily  class 
struggle.  Only  those  actually  engaged  in  the  struggle 
in  the  various  trades  and  industries  can  solve  the  prob- 
lems of  form  of  organizations.  The  Socialist  Party, 
therefore,  reaffirms  the  position  it  has  always  taken 
with  regard  to  the  movement  of  organized  labor: 

First,  that  the  party  has  neither  the  right  nor  the 
desire  to  interfere  in  any  controversies  which  may 
exist  within  the  labor  union  movement  over  plan  or 
form  of  organization  or  technical  methods  of  action 
in  the  industrial  struggle,  but  trusts  to  the  labor  or- 
ganizations themselves  to  solve  those  questions. 

Second,  tliat  the  Socialists  call  the  attention  of  their 
members  in  the  labor  unions  to  the  vital  importance 
of  the  task  of  organizing  the  unorganized,  especially 
the  immigrants  and  the  unskilled  laborers,  who  stand 
in  greatest  need  of  organized  protection,  and  who  con- 
stitute a  great  menace  to  the  progress  and  welfare 
of  organized  labor  if  they  remain  neglected.  The 
Socialist  Party  will  ever  be  ready  to  co-operate  with 
the  labor  unions  in  the  task  of  organizing  the  unor- 
ganized workers,  and  urges  the  labor  organizations 
which  have  not  already  done  so,  to  throw  their  doors 
wide  open  to  the  workers  in  their  respective  trades 
and  industries,  abolishing  all  onerous  conditions  of 
membership  and  artificial   restrictions.     In  the  face 

30 


of  the  tremendous  powers  of  the  American  capitalists 
and  their  close  industrial  and  jxvlitical  unions,  the 
workers  of  the  countrj'  can  win  their  battle  only  by 
strong  class  conscious  and  closely  united  organiza- 
tions on  the  economic  field,  and  a  powerful  and  mili- 
tant party  on  the  political  field,  and  by  joint  attack 
of  both  on  the  common  enemy. 

Third,  that  it  is  the  duty  of  the  party  to  give  moral 
and  material  support  to  the  labor  organizations  in 
all  the  defensive  or  aggressive  struggles  against  capi- 
talists' oppression  and  exploitation  for  the  protection 
and  extension  of  the  rights  of  the  wage  workers,  and 
the  betterment  of  their  material  and  social  conditions. 

Fourth,  that  it  is  the  duty  of  the  members  of  the 
Socialist  Party  who  are  eligible  to  membership  in 
the  unions  to  join  and  be  active  in  their  respective 
labor  organizations. 

Mr.  Thompson  :  Going  back  to  the  original  ques- 
tion again,  while  the  Socialists  appreciate  that  the 
underfed  and  underpaid  and  overworked  people  are 
not  apt  to  develop  that  intelligence  that  is  necessary 
to  understand  a  rather  elaborate  social  philosophy  or 
program  such  as  the  Socialist  Party  has,  vet,  when 
it  comes  to  dealing  with  the  subject  of  greatly  shorten- 
ing the  hours,  increasing  the  pay,  bettering  the  work- 
ing conditions,  they  have  no  definite  organization  of 
their  own,  and  do  not  go  directly  and  specifically  into 
industry,  but  leave  that  to  the  trade  unions  whose 
general  purposes  they,  as  a  party,  endorse? 

Mr.  Hillquit:    Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Thompson  :  And  rather  keep  to  the  field  of 
political  action  as  it  may  present  itself  for  the  carry- 
ing out  of  the  general  program,  such  as  the  munici- 
palization of  a  gas  plant  or  street  railroad? 

Mr.  Hilj:.quit  :  Principally,  bat  not  exclusively. 
That  is,  the  Socialist  Party  is  a  political  party,  prim- 
arily, but  it  is  not  a  political  party  in  the  sense  in 
which  the  old  parties  are.    It  is  not  exclusively  politi- 

31 


cal.  The  Socialist  Party  is  also  an  educational  or- 
ganization. And,  in  addition  to  that,  it  does  take 
an  active  part  in  the  economical  struggles  of  the 
workers  where  they  assume  a  general  character,  for 
instance,  in  cases  of  a  large  and  extensive  strike,  the 
Socialist  Party  actively  supports  the  strikers.  It  sup- 
ports them  by  means  of  money  contributions,  by  means 
of  speakers,  and  also  by  its  press.  Here  is  a  point 
which  is  perhaps  not  generally  appreciated:  The  So- 
cialist Party  has  better  facilities,  probably,  for  reach- 
ing the  non-English  speaking  workers  of  the  coun- 
try than  any  other  social  organization.  We  have 
papers  printed  in  almost  every  language  spoken  in 
the  United  States,  over  30  in  number,  and  we  have 
speakers  in  all  of  those  languages.  In  a  strike  of 
miners,  for  instance,  where  perhaps  a  dozen  differ- 
ent nationalities  are  involved,  one  of  the  great  prob- 
lems is  to  keep  them  together.  Of  course,  we  don't 
manage  the  strike.  But  we  very  cheerfully  send 
speakers  in  all  those  languages  to  the  strike  region, 
if  requested  or  consented  to  by  the  organization  having 
charge  of  the  strike.  We  send  our  literature  there, 
and,  of  course,  we  take  a  strong  position  in  support 
of  the  strike  in  all  of  our  publications.  We  also  render 
active  financial,  moral  and  other  support  in  other 
cases  of  labor  struggles,  as,  for  instance,  in  cases  like 
one  that  was  presented  by  the  Moyer-Haywood  trial, 
or  similar  legal  prosecutions  against  labor  leaders, 
arising  out  of  their  connections  with  labor  struggles. 
When  such  fights  become  pretty  general,  the  So- 
cialist Party  will  join  in  the  movement  for  defence 
of  the  accused.    It  has  done  so  time  and  time  again. 

Commissioner  Garretson  :  Is  it  not  true  that  the 
declared  position  of  the  Socialist  Party  to-day — is  it 
not  true  that  the  attitude  you  have  described  is  the 
only  one  which  you  could  consistently  take,  because 
active  effort  by  committees  or  otherwise  to  perform 
functions  would  be  by  you  regarded  as  only  a  tem- 

32 


porary  makeshift  until  a  reversal  of  the  system  had 
been  effected? 

Mr.  Hillquit  :  I  must  confess  I  don't  quite  under- 
stand the  question. 

Commissioner  Garretson  :  In  other  words,  that 
on  the  declaration  that  was  laid  down  as  the  basic 
one  of  the  Socialist  Party,  you  could  not  consistently, 
from  the  standpoint  of  the  Party,  deal  under  the  pres- 
ent methods  on  any  other  than  a  makeshift  basis;  you 
would  only  regard  it  as  patchwork,  and  not  as  real 
betterment  ? 

Mr.  Hillquit  :  I  would  not  say  that.  I  would  say 
that  I  consider  every  real  betterment  as  a  real  better- 
ment, and  often  also  as  leading  to  the  final  solution  and 
lo  the  radical  cure,  but  I  do  not  consider  it  as  a  com- 
plete cure:     In  other  words 

Commissioner  Garretson:  (Interrupting)  It  would 
only  be  grafted  upon  the  present  system? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  I  don't  say  that  at  all.  It  might 
change  the  present  system  gradually  into  a  new  and 
better  system.  It  is  not  grafting  upon  it.  Real  and 
lasting  reform,  such  as  proper  factory  legislation, 
proper  protection  of  workingmen  by  social  insurance, 
and  similar  measures,  is  not  a  makeshift  in  our  eyes. 
We  consider  it  as  very  valuable,  very  substantial. 

Commissioner  Garretson  :  You  very  evidently 
misunderstood  the  scope  of  my  question.  Only  to 
wage  and  working  conditions  is  what  I  intended  to 
apply  it  to.  In  other  words,  yoii  work  for  the  aboli- 
tion of  the  wage  system? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Well,  we  work  to-day  for  the  im- 
provement of  labor  conditions,  and  we  work  ultimately 
for  the  abolition  of  the  wage  system. 

Commissioner  Garretson:  And  therefore  you 
would  regard  betterment  in  those  things  just  as  of  a 
temporary  character  until  you  attained  the  whole 
object? 

33 


Mr.  Hillquit:  Oh,  no,  by  no  means.  We  would 
consider  it  as  one  step  in  the  direction  of  our  aim. 

CoMMLSSiONER  Garretson  :    Helping  it  along? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  We  would  consider  it  in  this  way, 
Mr.  Garretson:  If  I  have  set  out  to  earn  a  hundred 
dollars,  and  if  I  had  done  part  of  my  work  and  earned 
ten  dollars,  I  would  not  consider  that  as  a  makeshift 
or  patchwork,  but  would  consider  it  as  a  part  realiza- 
tion of  my  ultimate  object. 

Commissioner  Garretson  :   Part  of  the  $ioo? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Yes. 

Chairman  Walsh:  At  this  point  the  Commission 
will  adjourn  until  2  o'clock.  Return  here  at  2  o'clock 
sharp,  without  further  notice. 


34 


SECOND   SESSION. 

Socialist  Attitude  Towards  Trade 
Unionism 

Chairman  Walsh  :  The  Commission  will  please 
come  to  order.  Mr.  Thompson,  it  is  the  conclusion  of 
the  Commission  that  in  this  one  particular  case,  they 
would  waive  the  ordinary'  rule  and  let  Mr.  Gompers 
examine  Mr.  Hillquit,  and  Mr.  Hillquit  examine  Mr. 
Gompers. 

Mr.  Thompson  :  I  assume  now  that  I  am  substan- 
tially through  with  the  questions  I  have  to  ask  Mr. 
Hillquit  in  regard  to  the  application  of  Socialism  to 
the  present-day  industrial  propositions.  In  other 
words,  I  am  through  with  the  direct  examination. 

Chairman  Walsh:  If  it  is  convenient,  then,  Mr. 
Gompers,  you  may  proceed. 

Mr.  Gompers  :  Mr.  Hillquit,  in  your  statement  this 
morning  you  said  that  the  purpose  of  the  Socialist 
Party  is  to  help  the  trades  union  movement  in  the 
achievement  of  its  purposes, — that  is,  in  the  material 
improvement  of  the  condition  of  the  working  people. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  I  did. 

Mr.  Gompers:  Has  that  been  the  policy  of  the  So- 
cialist Party,  of  which  you  are  a  member,  and  with  its 
immediate  predecessor,  the  Socialist  Labor  Party? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  It  has  been  the  uniform  policy  of 
the  Socialist  Party.  It  has  also  been  the  policy,  in 
principle,  of  the  Socialist  Labor  Party,  although  I  am 
inclined  to  think  that  the  principle  was  not  properly 
applied  by  the  Socialist  Labor  Party  for  a  time. 

Mr.  Gompers:   You  said,  Mr.  Hillquit,  it  has  been 

35 


the  policy  of  the  Socialist  Party,  and  substantially  its 
purpose,  to  work  for  factory  legislation,  and  legisla- 
tion of  that  character.  Will  you  tell  the  Commission 
in  which  instances  your  Party  has  been  active  to  secure 
such  legislation? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  The  Party  has  been  active  in  that 
direction  wherever  it  has  had  an  opportunity  to  be 
active,  and  more  specifically  in  the  following  way: 
Where  the  Party  has  no  representation  in  the  State 
Legislatures,  its  activity  was  necessarily  limited  to  the 
advocacy  of  such  measures,  through  the  Party  press, 
the  adoption  of  proper  resolutions,  and  the  support  of 
such  measures  in  other  ways. 

Where  the  Party  has  had  representatives  in  the  Leg- 
islatures of  the  various  states,  such  attempts  have  been 
made  by  introducing  bills  for  efficient  labor  legislation. 
In  the  State  of  New  York  we  have  had  one  important 
movement  for  a  measure  of  labor  legislation,  one  over- 
shadowing all  others.  That  was  the  movement  for 
the  adoption  of  a  proper  Compensation  Act.  As  soon 
as  the  agitation  sprang  up,  the  Socialist  Party  initiated 
a  joint  conference  between  the  labor  organizations  of 
the  City,  including  the  Central  Federated  Union  of 
New  York,  the  Central  Labor  Union  of  Brooklyn,  and 
several  local  trades  councils,  and  the  Socialist  Party. 
It  was  this  joint  conference  which  was,  I  believe,  in- 
strumental, at  least  as  much  as  any  other  factor,  in 
making  the  movement  for  a  Workmen's  Compensation 
Act  effective ;  and  it  was  the  Socialist  Party  represen- 
tatives in  that  conference  who  led  in  the  propaganda 
and  in  the  drafting  of  the  proposed  Compensation  Act. 
We  had  for  one  term  only,  a  member  in  the  New  York 
State  Legislature,  and  that  member,  elected  in  the 
county  of  Schenectady,  Submitted  bills  along  all  im- 
portant lines  of  factory  and  social  reform,  including 
measures  for  State  insurance  against  sickness,  indus- 
trial accidents,  old  age  pensions,  limitation  of  child 
labor,  and  many  more  measures  along  the  program 

36 


advocated  by  the  Socialist  Party,  and  also  the  Amer- 
ican Federation  of  Labor.  In  Wisconsin  we  have  had 
representation  in  the  Legislature  for  a  number  of 
years,  and  I  am  free  to  state  that  there  is  not  a  gen- 
eral measure  advocated  by  the  organized  labor  move- 
ment in  this  country,  including  the  American  Federa- 
tion of  Labor,  which  has  not  found  concrete  expres- 
sion in  some  proposed  measure  submitted  by  the 
Socialist  representatives  in  that  assembly.  The  same 
holds  true  of  every  other  state  in  which  we  have  had 
representation.  Even  the  State  of  Washington,  I 
noticed  recently  a  statement  of  all  the  measures  pro- 
posed or  supported  by  the  Socialist  representatives, 
and  they  cover  almost  the  whole  range  of  labor  legis- 
lation. The  same  holds  true,  of  course,  in  a  larger 
measure  of  all  countries  on  the  European  continent, 
where  Socialism  is  a  strong  political  factor.* 

Mr.  Gompers:  Are  you  through? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  I  am  through. 

Mr.  Gompers:  The  Workmen's  Compensation  Bill, 
now  a  law  of  the  State  of  New  York, — did  the  So- 
cialist Party  have  a  hand  in  the  framing  of  that  Bill? 

Mr.  Hillquit  :  The  Socialist  Party  had  at  that  time 
no  representation  in  the  Legislature. 

Mr.  Gompers:  I  am  asking  you  whether  you  took 
any  part,  whether  the  Socialist  Party  took  any  part  in 
the  framing  of  that  Bill. 

Mr.  Hillquit:   It  did  not  and  could  not,  and  if  it 

*  According  to  a  compilation  made  by  Miss  Mills  under 
the  direction  of  the  Information  Department  of  the  So- 
cialist Party,  Socialist  representatives  in  the  Legislatures 
of  nine  states  have  introduced  within  the  seven-year 
period,  1907-1913,  a  total  of  895  measures  for  social  re- 
form, of  which  141  have  been  enacted  into  laws.  Of  the 
bills  so  introduced  207  were  measures  of  labor  legislation 
and  35  of  these  were  actually  passed.  (See  Legislative 
Program  of  the  Socialist  Party  by  Ethelwyn  Mills, 
Chicago,  1914.) 

37 


could  have  done  so,  the  law  would  have  heen  very 
much  better  and  more  efficient  than  it  is.    (Laughter.) 

Mr.  Gompers:  Do  you  know  that  the  Workmen's 
Compensation  Law  of  the  State  of  New  York  is  the 
most  comprehensive  and  generous  of  any  law  on  the 
statute  books  of  this  or  of  any  other  state  and  of  any 
country  on  the  face  of  the  globe  ? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  No,  not  of  any  other  country,  Mr. 
Gompers.  It  is,  I  believe,  one  of  the  very  best  in  this 
country.  It  is  far  from  doing  social  justice  to  the 
workers,  in  my  opinion. 

Mr.  Gompers:  It  has  not  established  the  co-oper- 
ative commonwealth  ? 

Mr.  Hillqitit:  Nor  has  it  established  a  proper 
Compensation  Act. 

Mr.  Gompers:  Now,  then,  do  you  know  that  the 
Workmen's  Compensation  Act  was  drafted  by  author- 
ity and  direction  of  the  New  York  State  Federation 
of  Labor? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Yes,  after  the  New  York  State  Fed- 
eration of  Labor  had  received  a  good  deal  of  valuable 
instruction  on  the  subject  from  the  Socialists.  I  know 
something  about  it,  Mr,  Gompers.  (Laughter  in  the 
audience.) 

Chairman  Walsh  :  We  must  keep  order,  ladies 
and  gentlemen,  and  it  will  not  be  proper  to  make  any 
demonstration  at  any  time. 

Mr.  Gompers:  Who  gave  that  instruction?  What 
did  that  instruction  consist  of? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Why,  when  we  first  met  the  rep- 
resentative of  the  State  Federation  of  Labor,  Mr. 
Gompers,  we  found  that  the  majority  of  the  members 
did  not  even  know  what  workmen's  compensation 
stood  for,  and  we  have  had  a  sort  of  study  class  there. 
I  remember  it  very  well.  The  first  draft  prepared  by 
them  was  so  dolefully  inadequate,  that  we  urged  Mr. 
McDonough,  who  then  represented  the  American  Fed- 
eration of  Labor  to  withdraw  it,  and  to  re-drvift  and 

38 


remodel  his  bill.  Nothing  passed  at  that  session  of  the 
legislature.  Then  the  bill  passed  which  was  declared 
unconstitutional  by  the  Court  of  Appeals,  and  when 
finally  the  present  bill  was  prepared,  it  came  very  much 
closer  to  our  original  draft. 

Mr,.  Gompers  :  Do  you  know  that  there  was  a  meet- 
ing in  the  Assembly  Hall  of  the  New  York  Legislature 
where  the  joint  committees  of  the  legislature  had  hear- 
ings and  investigations  in  regard  to  the  Workmens' 
Compensation  Bill,  now  a  law? 

Mr.  Hillquit  :  I  appeared  in  one  of  those  hearings 
on  Workmens'  Compensation. 

Mr.  Gompers:  I  refer  to  the  hearing  by  the  Joint 
Committee  of  both  houses  of  the  legislature. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Appointed  by  Governor  Hughes. 
It  was  the  first  and  only  one.  The  Wainwright  Com- 
mission, is  that  it  ? 

Mr.  Gompers:  No,  sir,  you  are  quite  in  error,  Mr. 
Hillquit.  That  is,  pardon  me;  I  have  no  right  to  say 
that.  But  I  refer  to  the  Workmens'  Compensation 
Bill  when  Mr.  Sulzer  was  Governor. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  If  there  was  such  a  commission,*  I 
know  nothing  about  it,  for  I  was  abroad  at  that 
time.  I  know  that  the  subject  as  originally  taken  up 
by  the  Wainwright  Commission,  and  that  before 
that  Commission,  the  Socialist  Party  was  officially  rep- 
resented by  your  humble  servant,  and  one  or  two  other 
representatives.  We  urged  our  views  on  the  Commis- 
sion in  favor  of  an  effective  and  broad  compensation 
act,  and  I  believe  they  received  some  consideration. 

Mr.  Gompers:  Was  the  Wainwright  Commission 
created  by  an  act  of  the  legislature  of  the  State  of 
New  York? 

Mr.  Hillquit:    Yes. 

Mr.  Gompers:  Was  that  urged  by  the  Socialist 
Party? 

*  As  a  matter  of  fact  there  was  no  such  commission. 
39 


Mr.  Hillquit:  Was  what  urged  by  the  Socialist 
Party? 

Mr.  Gompers:  The  creation  of  this  Commission? 

Mr.  Hillquit  :  The  Socialist  Party  was  very  much" 
in  favor  of  the  creation  of  such  Commission.  It  did 
not  happen  to  be  in  power,  and  could  not  appoint  a 
committee. 

Mr.  Gompers:  Do  you  know  that  the  American 
Federation  of  Labor  has  gone  on  record  for  more  than 
ten  years  in  favor  of  a  workmens'  compensation  law 
for  the  States  and  for  the  Federal  Government  ? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  I  have  no  fault  to  find  with  the 
American  Federation  of  Labor  in  its  attitude  on  work- 
mens' compensation.  I  think  that  is  one  of  the  things 
that  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  did  properly. 

Mr.  Gompers:  Do  you  know  what  the  Socialist 
Party  contributed  toward  that  end  ? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  I  know  it  has  contributed  a  good 
deal  along  the  lines  onrwhich  it  could  contribute.  I 
know  that  the  Socialist  Party  had  expressed  itself  in 
favor  of  workmens'  compensation  or  State  insurance 
of  workers  in  case  of  accidents,  much  longer  than  lo 
years  ago,  and  even  before  the  American  Federation 
of  Labor  had  taken  it  up,  and  I  should  not  be  surprised 
if  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  was  directly  in- 
fluenced by  that  Socialist  propaganda  in  taking  it  up. 

Mr.  Gompers:  Do  you  know  of  the  efforts  of  the 
Socialist  Party  to  secure  workmens'  compensation  for 
the  government  employes  of  the  United  States  ? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  I  would  not  specify  government 
employes.  The  Socialist  Party  of  the  United  States 
pronounced  itself  in  favor  of  workmens'  compensation 
generally,  drafted  a  model  Workmens'  Compensation 
Act,  sent  it  to  all  State  Secretaries  of  the  organization 
and  to  all  its  locals,  with  the  recommendation  to  make 
special  propaganda  for  it,  and  in  1910,-  I  believe,  it 
passed  a  resolution  urging  the  various  local  organiza- 

40 


tions  of  the  Socialist  Party  to  concentrate  their  efforts 
upon  workmens'  compensation.* 

Mr.  Gompers:  Mr.  Hillquit,  I  have  no  desire  to 
curb  you  in  any  way,  but  where  you  can  answer  Yes 
or  No,  that  does  no  violence  to  your  position,  it  would 
be  proper;  and  if  exemplification  or  amplification  is 
necessary,  why,  it  would  be  better  to  do  it  then. 

Chairman  Walsh:  Wherever  an  answer  Yes  or 
No  can  be  given,  give  it  first,  Mr.  Hillquit,  and  then 
take  all  the  time  you  need  to  explain  your  answer. 

Mr,.  Hillquit  :  I  am  perfectly  well  satisfied.  I  did 
not  know  my  friend,  Mr,  Gompers,  was  so  legally 
technical. 

Mr.  Gompers:  I  would  like  to'have  some  definite 
answer  to  a  definite  question. 

Mr.  Hillquit:   Very  well,  Mr.  Gompers. 

Mr.  Gompers  :  What  assistance,  if  any,  was  given 
by  the  Socialist  Party  to  the  creation  of  a  Bureau  of 
Mines  for  the  protection  of  the  lives  and  health  and 
conditions  of  the  miners? 

Mr,.  Hillquit:   The  same  assistance  as  the  assist- 


*  The  resolution  is  as  follows : 

"The  Congress  strongly  advises  all  state  and  local  organ- 
izations of  the  party  to  give  careful  study  to  the  subject  of 
workmen's  compensation  laws,  to  train  a  corps  of  speakers 
and  writers  qualified  to  deal  with  the  campaign  for  the  enact- 
ment of  such  laws  and  for  their  improvement  in  any  cases 
where  they  may  be  enacted  in  an  unsatisfactory  form. 

"The  Congress  instructs  the  National  Executive  Committee 
to  assume  the  duty  of  correlating  the  efforts  of  the  various 
state  and  local  organizations  on  this  line,  assisting  them  in 
the  collection  and  exchange  of  information,  the  training  of 
speakers  and  writers,  the  publication  and  distribution  of  liter- 
ature, so  as  to  give  the  movement  a  nation-wide  scope. 

"The  Congress  invites  the  labor  unions  of  all  trades  and 
industries  to  join  with  the  Party  in  the  prosecution  of  this 
work,  and  urges  the  Party  organizations  in  every  industrial 
center  to  enter  into  conference  with  the  local  central  labor 
bodies  for  that  purpose." 

41 


ance  given  in  other  similar  measures,  that  of  propa- 
ganda for  it. 

Mr.  Gompers:  Did  the  Socialist  Party  aid  in  secur- 
ing the  enactment  of  a  law  for  uniform  couplers  on 
cars  on  railroads? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  I  do  not  think  that  specific  question 
ever  came  up  before  the  Socialist  Party. 

Mr.  Gompers:  Did  the  Socialist  Party  ever  take 
any  f>art  in  securing  vestibules  for  the  street  railway 
men? 

Mr.  Hillquit  :  The  Socialist  Party  never  took  part 
in  propaganda  for  special  legislation  affecting  certain 
special  trades.  It  considers  that  to  be  within  the  pro- 
vince of  the  organized  workers  within  the  particular 
trades  or  industries. 

Mr.  Gompers:  Did  I  understand  you  correctly  to 
say  this  morning  that  the  Socialist  Party  always  was 
and  is  now  in  favor  of  the  trade  union  movement,  the 
labor  union  movement? 

Mr.  Hillquit  :   You  understood  me  correctly. 

Mr.  Gompers:  Do  you  recall  or  do  you  know  that 
at  the  convention  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor 
in  Detroit  the  Socialist  Party  insisted  upon  represen- 
tation in  that  convention  as  a  political  party? 

Mr.  Hillquit  :  That  was  when,  Mr.  Gompers,  1890, 
was  it? 

Mr.  Gompers:  About  that  time. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  I  know  that  the  Socialist  Labor 
Party  that  then  existed  claimed  the  right  to  represen- 
tation in  the  convention  of  the  American  Federation 
of  Labor  through  membership  in  the  Central  Labor 
Federation  of  New  York,  and  such  representation  was 
not  granted.  The  Socialist  Party  never  claimed  such 
representation. 

Mr.  Gompers:  They  felt  outraged  at  such  an  ex- 
clusion ? 

Mr.  Hillquit:    The  Socialist  Party  did  not  feel 

42 


outraged  at  such  an  exclusion  because  the  SociaHst 
Party  never  sought  representation. 

Mr.  Gompers:  Did  the  SociaHst  Party  ever  inau- 
gurate a  movement  to  supplant  or  to  be  in  rivalry  with 
the  American  Federation  of  Labor? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  The  Socialist  Party  very  emphati- 
cally did  not.  The  Socialist  Labor  Party  at  one  time 
conceived  the  notion  of  forming  an  organization  of 
trades  unions  in  opposition  to  the  American  Federation 
of  Labor,  and  constituting  a  distinct  Socialist  economic 
organization.  This  act  on  the  part  of  the  Socialist 
Labor  Party  brought  about  a  split  within  the  Party, 
and  the  Socialist  Party  of  to-day  was  organized  largely 
on  that  issue  and  because  it  did  not  agree  with  that 
policy. 

Mr,  Gompers:  The  Socialist  Party  which  you  now 
represent  before  the  Commission  is  the  successor  of 
the  Socialist  Labor  Party  as  it  existed? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  It  is  the  successor  of  that  part  of 
the  Socialist  Labor  Party  which  rebelled  against  the 
labor  policy  just  mentioned  by  you.  Those  who  were 
opposed  to  the  policy  seceded  and  formed  the  new  So- 
cialist Party. 

Mr..  Gompers:  The  Socialist  Labor  Party  is  still  in 
existence  ? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  The  Socialist  Labor  Party  is  still 
nominally  in  existence. 

Mr.  Gompers:  Do  you  think  the  members  of  the 
Socialist  Labor  Party  would  agree  with  you  in  saying 
it  is  still  nominally  in  existence? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  I  don't  know.  They  represent  the 
same  proportion  in  the  Socialist  movement  as  the 
L  W.  W.  represents  in  the  American  labor  movement. 

Chairman  Walsh  :  In  round  numbers  how  many 
members  are  there  in  the  United  States  of  the  Social  • 
ist  Party? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  About  115,000  dues-paying  mem- 
bers. 

43 


Chairman  Walsh  :  And  how  many  in  the  Socialist 
Labor  Party,  do  you  know? 

Mr.  Hillquit  :  I  estimate  about  1,500. 

Chairman  Walsh  :  Where  do  you  get  that  .esti- 
mate? 

Mr  Hillquit:  Pretty  much  from  the  Socialist 
Labor  Party.  The  last  time  they  gave  or^  a  statement 
of  membership,  it  was  between  2  and  3  thousand,  and 
they  have  since  fallen  off  as  may  be  noticed  by  their 
referenda  and  other  indications. 

Mr.  Gompers:  Who  was  the  candidate  of  the  So- 
cialist Party  for  President  of  the  United  States 
in  1912? 

Mr.  Hillquit:   Mr.  Eugene  V.  Debs. 

Mr.  Gompers:   Who  was  in  1908? 

Mr.  Hillquit  :  Likewise. 

Mr.  Gompers:  And  in  1902? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  1902?  There  was  no  Presidential 
candidate  in  1902,  when  you  come  to  think  of  it. 

Mr.  Gompers:   1904? 

Mr.  Hillquit  :  It  was  Debs. 

Mr.  Gompers  :  Is  it  unfair  to  assume  that  the  can- 
didate of  your  Party  for  the  Presidency  of  the  United 
States  expresses  the  views  of  the  Party?  Is  he  the 
Party  spokesman  and  standard  bearer? 

Mr.  Hillquit  :  It  is  entirely  unfair  to  assume  that, 
in  view  of  the  expressed  position  of  the  Party  itself. 
In  other  words,  Mr.  Gompers,  when  the  Socialist 
Party,  in  convention  assembled,  officially  takes  a  stand 
on  its  relation  to  organized  labor,  no  individual  mem- 
ber of  the  Party,  no  matter  what  his  position,  can 
nullify  or  modify  that  stand. 

Mr.  Gompers:  Do  you  know  that  Mr.  Eugene  V. 
Debs  was  present  at  the  First  Annual  Convention  of 
the  organization  which  formed  the  so-called  Industrial 
Workers  of  the  World? 

Mr.  Hillquit:   I  do. 

44 


Mr.  Gompers:  Have  you  read  any  of  his  speeches 
during  that  convention? 

Mr.  Hillquit:   I  have  read  some. 

Mr.  Gompers:  Do  you  regard  his  expressions  as 
being  friendly  or  in  favor  of  the  trades  union  move- 
ment, the  American  Federation  of  Labor? 

Mr.  Hillquit  : .  As  I  understand  his  position,  his 
attitude  is  not  friendly  toward  the  leaders  of  the  Amer- 
ican Federation  of  Labor.  His  attitude  is  more 
friendly  toward  the  members  of  the  American  Federa- 
tion of  Labor.  But  these  are  his  personal  views  to 
which  he  is  entitled. 

Mr.  Gompers  :  When  Mr.  Debs  says :  "The  Amer- 
ican Federation  of  Labor  has  numbers,  but  the  capi- 
talist class  do  not  fear  the  American  Federation  of 
Labor.  Quite  the  contrary."  Do  you  regard  that 
utterance  as  a  friendly  expression  for  the  American 
Federation  of  Labor? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  I  do  not,  nor  do  I  regard  it  as  an 
authorized  utterance  of  the  Socialist  Party. 

Mr.  Gompers:  Speaking  of  the  American  Federa- 
tion of  Labor  and  of  some  Socialists,  he  says :  "There 
are  these  who  believe  that  this  form  of  unionism  can 
be  changed  from  within.  They  are  very  greatly  mis- 
taken." Do  you  agree  with  Mr.  Debs  on  that  utter- 
ance? 

Mr.  Hillquit  :  I  do  not  agree.  I  think,  on  the  con- 
trary, the  American  Federation  of  Labor  is  being 
forced,  and  will  be  forced  more  and  more  to  gradually 
change  its  form  of  organization,  to  adjust  itself  to  the 
forms  of  modern  industrial  conditions. 

Mr.  Gompers:  I  read  this,  and  ask  you  for  your 
opinion.  Mr.  Debs  says  in  that  speech :  "There  is  but 
one  way  to  effect  this  change,  and  that  is  for  the  work- 
ingman  to  sever  his  relation  with  the  American  .Fed- 
eration." 

Mr.  Hillquit:  I  do  not  agree  with  that,  nor  does 
the  Socialist  Party  agree  with  that.    And,  to  make  our 

45 


position  clear  once  for  all,  Mr.  Gompers,  I  will  say 
that  it  will  be  quite  useless  to  quote  Mr.  Debs  on  his 
attitude  to  the  American  Federation  of  Labor.  Mr. 
Debs  took  part  in  the  organization  of  the  Industrial 
Workers  of  the  World.  I  think  he  has  now  lived  to 
regret  it,  but  whether  he  does  or  not,  the  fact  is  that  he 
acted  entirely  on  his  own  accord  and  on  his  own  re- 
sponsibility;  that  the  Socialist  Party  at  no  time  ap- 
proved, directly  or  indirectly,  of  that  stand,  and  at  no 
time  have  endorsed  the  Industrial  Workers  of  the 
World  as  against  the  American  Federation  of  Labor. 
And  I  will  say  further  that  the  Socialist  Party  at  no 
time  made  fundamental  criticisms  against  the  Amer- 
ican Federation  of  Labor,  although  I  am  just  as  frank 
to  add  that  the  Socialist  Party,  or  at  least  the  majority 
of  its  members,  do  believe  that  the  present  leadership 
of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  is  somewhat 
archaic,  somewhat  antiquated,  too  conservative  and  not 
efiFicient  enough  for  the  objects  and  purposes  of  the 
American  Federation  of  Labor.  That  is  the  general 
Socialist  position. 

Mr.  Gompers:  Of  course  as  to  the  leadership,  that 
must  be  determined.  The  leadership  of  the  American 
Federation  of  Labor,  I  assume,  must  be  determined  by 
the  membership  of  the  organization,  as  it  can  best  give 
expression  to  its  preference. 

Mr.  Hillquit:    Entirely  so. 

Mr.  Gompers:  Are  you  aware  that  the  leadership 
to  which  you  refer,  has  been  elected  and  re-elected  by 
practically  unanimous  vote  for  several  years  past  ? 

Mr.  Hillquit  :  We  do  not  contest  the  election  nor 
the  legitimacy  of  office  of  the  officials  of  the  A.  F.  of 
L.  We  only  wish  they  were  a  little  more  abreast  of 
the  time,  and  that  they  would  keep  pace  with  industrial 
developments. 

Mr.  Gompers:  Reverting  to  Mr.  Debs,  he  does  not 
oppose  the  leadership  only.    In  his  speech 

Mr.  Hillquit:    If  you  will  read  all,  you  will  find 

46 


that  his  opposition  is  largely,  if  not  exclusively,  directed 
against  the  leadership  as  he  sees  it.  And  I  reiterate 
once  more  that  it  is  his  individual  stand. 

Mi^.  GoMPERS:  You  have  said  that  it  is  his  individ- 
ual stand,  yet  the  speech  to  which  I  refer  and  in  which 
he  asks  and  urges  the  workmen  to  leave  the  American 
Federation  of  Labor,  was  made  some  time  in  June  or 
July,  1908,  and  Mr.  Debs  was  twice  made  the  standard 
bearer  of  the  Socialist  Party  as  candidate  for  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States  since  that  time. 

Mr.  Hillquit  :  Yes,  sir.  He  was.  There  was  ab- 
solutely no  reason  why  he  should  not  be,  in  view  of 
the  fact  that  the  Party  itself  had  at  the  same  time  very 
explicitly  declared  its  stand  on  organized  labor,  and 
it  did  not  have  to  apprehend  that  any  of  its  represen- 
tatives might  misrepresent  its  attitude. 

Mr.  Gompers:  Do  you  know  that  Mr.  Debs  has, 
within  these  past  weeks,  issued  a  document  in  whicJi 
he  urges  the  secession  of  two  of  the  largest  organiza- 
tions from  the  American  Federation  of  Labor,  for  the 
purpose  of  destroying  the  American  Federation  of 
Labor  ? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  I  do.  May  I  add,  Mr.  Gompers,  that 
this  likewise  was  wholly  and  fully  done  by  his  own 
initiative  and  on  his  own  responsibility,  and  is  in  no 
way  approved  of  or  condoned  by  the  Socialist  Party. 
We  allow  liberty  of  expression  and  opinion  within  the 
Socialist  Party,  you  know. 

Mr.  Gompers:  Do  you  regard  that  as  the  individual 
expression  of  opinion,  when  a  man  thrice  the  candidate 
of  a  political  party,  urges  that  a  movement  be  inau- 
gurated to  dissolve  the  only  general  federation  of  or- 
ganized workmen  that  ever  existed  for  a  period  of 
time,  such  as  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  ? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  I  regard  it  purely  as  the  individual 
expression  of  the  man.  The  Socialist  Party  never 
places  its  program  or  views  into  the  hands  of  an  in- 
dividual candidate.    It  speaks  for  itself  in  conventions. 

47 


Mr.  GoMPERs:  And  the  candidate  for  the  Presi- 
dency of  your  party  does  not  express,  then,  the  senti- 
ments and  the  views  of  the  Party  itself,  is  that  the  in- 
ference to  be  drawn  from  your  answer  ? 

Mr.  Hii.lquit:  You  may  draw  this  inference,  that, 
whenever  a  candidate  of  the  Socialist  Party  for  the 
Presidency  or  otherwise,  deviates  from  the  declared 
principles  of  the  Socialist  Party,  he  does  not  speak  for 
the  Party,  but  speaks  entirely  on  his  responsibility. 

Are  you  still  quoting  Mr.  Debs? 

Mr.  Gompers  :  Perhaps.  Would  you  hold  the  same 
line  of  conduct  to  apply  to,  say,  Mr.  Taft,  who  was  the 
candidate  for  President  of  the  United  States,  nomi- 
nated by  the  Republican  Party  ? 

Mr.  Hillquit  :  No,  sir.  The  Republican  Party  has 
no  declaration  of  general  principles;  no  expressed 
attitude  towards  labor  unions ;  no  general  social  philos- 
ophy, and  no  social  views  of  any  kind.  Its  candidate 
for  President  therefore  necessarily  acts  as  the  spokes- 
man of  his  party.  The  Socialist  Party  is  entirely  dif- 
ferent in  this  respect. 

Mr.  Gompers:  Would  you  say  the  candidate  of 
the  Prohibitionists,  the  candidate  for  President,  if  he 
were  to  make  a  declaration  that  was  inconsistent  with 
what  his  party  would  hold,  would  you  regard  that  as 
simply  his  individual  expression  of  opinion  ? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  If  the  candidate  for  President  of 
the  Prohibition  Party  were  to  take  a  drink,  I  would 
not  say  that  the  Prohibition  Party  was  committed  to 
the  drink  evil. 

Mr.  Gompers:  1  prefer  not  to  bring  in  the  personal 
habits  of  any  man.  I  don't  know  that  that  is  illumi- 
nating or  contributory  to  the  discussion. 

Mr.  Hillquit  :  I  did  not  mean  to  be  personal,  Mr. 
Gompers. 

Mr.  Gompers:  The  question  as  to  the  candidate  for 
President  of  the  Prohibition  Party  is  nothing  to  me. 
I  was  speaking  of  personal  declarations.    Supposing  I, 

48 


as  President  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor, 
were  to  go  upon  the  platform  and  give  expression  in 
a  speech,  or  were  to  write  an  editorial  in  the  American 
Federationist,  urging  the  dissolution  of  the  American 
Federation  of  Labor, 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Of  the  Socialist  Party,  you  mean, 
to  apply  your  analogy. 

Mr.  Gompers:  Evidently  you  want  to  bandy  words 
with  me  rather  than  to  answer  the  question. 

Mr.  Hillquit:   Go  ahead. 

Chairman  Walsh  :  Wait  until  the  question  is  fin- 
ished and  then  answer,  if  you  can. 

Mr.  Gompers:  Supposing  Mr.  Gompers,  President 
of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor,  were  upon  a 
public  platform  or  in  articles  contributed  to  the  Labor 
Press,  to  advocate  the  dissolution  of  the  American  Fed- 
eration of  Labor,  would  you  regard  that  as  a  personal 
expression  of  my  own  ? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  I  would,  decidedly.  If  you,  as  the 
President  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor,  were 
to  advocate  a  dissolution  of  the  American  Federation 
of  Labor,  without  such'  a  resolution  having  been  passed 
by  the  Federation,  I  certainly  should  not  say  that  you 
voiced  the  sentiments  of  the  organization. 

Furthermore,  with  all  due  respect  to  you,  your 
analogy  does  not  apply,  Mr.  Gompers.  Mr.  Debs,  a 
leading  member  of  the  Socialist  Party,  advocates  cer- 
tain changes  in  the  American  Federation  of  Labor.  If 
you,  as  the  President  of  the  American  Federation  of 
Labor,  were  to  advocate  a  change  or  dissolution  in  or 
of  the  Socialist  Party,  you  would  be  in  an  analogous 
position,  and  I  certainly  would  not  regard  that  as  an 
official  expression  of  the  American  Federation  of  La- 
bor. Furthermore,  you,  Mr.  Gompers,  have  very  often 
taken  a  stand  hostile  to  the  Socialist  Party.  I  do  not 
regard  that  as  the  official  expression  of  the  American 
Federation  of  Labor,  for  I  know  that  the  membership, 
or  a  very  large  portion  of  it,  hold  very  different  views 

49 


on  the  subject.  That  does  not  come  within  your 
domain  as  President  of  the  American  P'ederation  of 
Labor,  although  you,  as  an'  individual,  arc  at  liberty 
to  hold  such  opinions,  and  the  Federation  does  not 
in  any  way  discipline  you  for  holding  them.  There  iS 
your  analogy. 

Mr.  Gompers:  Mr.  Hillquit,  these  speeches  which 
you  have  made  a  thousand  and  one  times 

Chairman  Walsh  :  I  would  not  get  into  any  argu- 
ments, Mr.  Gompers,  with  the  witness,  but  just  ques- 
tion him.  When  you  go  on  the  witness  stand,  he  is 
going  to  ask  you  questions,  and  I  suppose  you  can 
make  some  when  you  come  to  go  on  there. 

Mr.  Gompers:  All  right,  Mr.  Chairman.  Now,  of 
course,  Mr.  Hillquit,  you  understand  that  the  articles 
or  editorials  which  1  have  written  and  published  in 
the  American  Federationist,  all  of  them  have  been 
caused  by  the  defensive  attitude  which  the  American 
Federation  has  been  forced  to  take  against  the  aggres- 
siveness and  hostility  of  the  Socialist  Labor  Party  and 
the  Socialist  Party? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  I  don't  think. so  at  all,  Mr.  Gompers. 
If  you  ask  me  about  my  understanding  of  it.  my  under- 
standing is  that  those  articles  have  been  caused  by  your 
fear  of  the  increasing  growth  of  Socialism  in  the  ranks 
of  the  Federation.    That  is  my  understanding  of  it. 

Mr.  Gompers:  Well,  of  course,  you  would  not  at- 
tribute to  me  very  great  fear  of  anything,  would  you  ' 

Mr.  Hillquit:   Of  anything? 

Mr.  Gompers:  Of  anything. 

Mr.  Hillquit  :  If  you  want  my  opinion,  Mr.  Gom- 
pers, I  should  say  you  are  a  very  brave  man,  but  you 
do  hate  to  see  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  turn- 
ing Socialistic. 

Mr.  Gompers:  The  reason  I  do  so  is  the  result  of 
conviction 

Chairman  Walsh  :  Mr.  Gompers,  please  do  not 
get  into  an  argument  with  the  witness  now.    You  can 

50 


go  on  the  witness  stand  and  he  will  examine  you  and 
you  will  have  the  same  latitude  of  stating  your  views. 
But  just  ask  him  questions,  please. 

Mr.  Gompers  :  Mr.  Debs,  in  his  speech,  to  which  T 
have  referred  before,  said:  "I  appeal  to  you  to  ally 
yourselves  with  the  economic  organization  which  em- 
braces your  entire  class."  He  referred  to  the  Indus- 
trial Workers  of  the  World,  organized  in  1905.  Will 
you  give  me  your  judgment  as  to  the  extent  to  whicli 
that  organization  embraces  the  entire  working  class? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Of  the  world?  Not  very  much, 
Mr,  Gompers.  It  was  the  fond  hope  of  the  organizers, 
which  I  never  shared,  that  it  would;  but  it  does  not. 

Mr.  Gompers:  He  says  further:  "I  would  appeal 
to  you  to  declare  yourselves  here  and  now,  to  be  for 
once  and  forever  true  enough  to  yourselves  to  join 
the  only  industrial  union  that  is  absolutely  true  to  you 
— the  I.  W.  W."  And  the  stenographer  put  "Loud 
Applause."  Will  you  give  your  opinion  of  that  state- 
ment? 

Mr.  Hillquit  :  My  opinion  is  the  same  that  I  have 
given  you  before.  I  think  Mr.  Debs  was  carried  away 
by  his  enthusiasm,  when  he  thought  he  could  create  an 
artificial  organization  to  embrace  all  the  workers 
joined  in  one  great  industrial  union.  I  think  his  views 
of  trade  unionism  are  not  sound.  At  any  rate,  they 
are  not  those  of  the  Socialist  Party  and  they  are  not 
mine;  and  you  might  just  as  well  read  200  quotations 
from  his  speeches  on  that  subject  as  five. 

Mr.  Gompers  :  Mr.  Debs  then  said :  "Now,  we,  the 
Socialists,  who  have  organized  the  Industrial  Workers, 
have  had  enough  of  this  kind  of  experience.  We  have 
quit  the  old  unions." 

Mr.  Hillquit  :  I  presume  he  has  had  enough,  Mr. 
Gompers.    He  does  not  speak  for  others. 

Mr.  Gompers:  Isn't  it  true  that  at  the  last  con- 
vention of  the  Socialist  Party,  held  at  Indianapolis, 
Mr.  Karl  Legien,  of  Germany,  was  urged  to  be  in  at- 

51 


tendance  in  order  that  he  might  help  prevent  the  intro- 
duction and  passage  of  a  resolution  hostile  to  the  trade 
union  movement? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  It  is  not.  Mr.  Legien  was  asked 
to  be  present  as  a  prominent  Socialist,  and  as  the  In- 
ternational Trades  Union  Secretary,  in  order  to  de- 
liver an  address  on  the  experiences  of  the  Socialists 
of  Germany  and  the  organized  workers  in  their  mutual 
co-operation,  which  he  did  and  did  very  well. 

Mr.  Gompers:  Do  you  know  at  the  time  when  the 
Socialist  Party  convention  was  about  to  be  held  Mr. 
Legien  was  lecturing  under  the  auspices  of  the  Amer- 
ican Federation  of  Labor? 

Mr^  Hillquit:  Yes,  that  was  about  the  most  pro- 
gressive thing  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  ever 
did. 

Mr.  Gompers:  And  do  you  know  that  he  asked  per- 
mission from  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  that 
he  might  cancel  a  few  engagements  already  made,  so 
that  he  could  attend  the  Socialist  Party  convention  for 
the  purpose  I  indicated  by  my  first  question  ? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  I  don't  know  his  specific  engage- 
ments. I  know  that  Mr.  Legien  came  here  primarily 
on  the  invitation  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor, 
in  which  the  Socialist  Party  joined;  and  the  under- 
standing was  that  he  was  first  to  lecture  for  the  Amer- 
ican Federation  of  Labor,  and  then  for  the  Socialist 
Party. 

Mr.  Gompers:  The  New  York  Call  is  one  of  the 
official  journals  of  the  Socialist  Party,  is  it  not? 

Mr.  Hillquit  :  Not  official.  But  it  is  a  Socialist 
paper. 

Mr.  Gompers:  A  recognized  Socialist  paper? 

Mr.  PIillquit:  Yes. 

Mr.  Gompers:  Speaking  with  some  degree  of  au- 
thority ? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Editorially,  mostly  speaking  with 
some  degree  of  authority. 

52 


Mr.  Gompers  :  This  appeared  in  it — in  the  issue  of 
December  i6th,  1909:  "Don't  like  the  I.  W.  W.? 
Well,  don't  kill  the  kid.  He  will  grow,  and  we  shall 
need  him  in  our  business  by  and  by,  and  possibly 
sooner  than  many  of  us  believe." 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Now,  Mr.  Gompers,  did  that  ap- 
pear as  an  editorial  or  as  a  contributed  letter  by  some 
reader  ? 

Mr.  Gompers  :   I  can't  say,  sir. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  I  can  help  you  out,  Mr.  Gompers. 
It  was  never  part  of  an  editorial.  That  was  one  of  the 
many  letters  sent  to  the  Call  by  all  sorts  of  writers, 
which  the  Call  publishes,  just  as  the  Evening  Globe 
does,  without  taking  any  responsibility  for  them. 

Mr.  Gompers:  In  a  work  entitled  "Industrial 
Union  Movement,"  the  preface  is  written  by  C.  H. 
Kerr,  a  prominent  American  Socialist,  a  member  of 
the  Party,  and  a  large  publisher  of  Socialist  literature. 
In  it  he  says :  "As  Marxian  students  of  evolution,  we 
(Socialists)  recognize  that  economic  concentration  has 
made  trade  unions  obsolete,  and  that  the  principle  of 
industrial  unionism  must  be  adopted  in  the  near 
future." 

Mr,.  Hillquit:  What  do  you  want  to  know  with 
reference  to  that,  Mr.  Gompers? 

Mr.  Gompers:  Is  that  a  Socialist  expression  in 
favor  of  the  American  labor  union  movement? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Why,  it  might  be.  The  expression 
comes  from  Mr.  Kerr,  I  believe,  in  a  preface  to  "In- 
dustrial Socialism."  "Industrial  Socialism  was  a 
pamphlet,  written  by  Mr.  Haywood  and  Mr.  Bohn, 
and  indirectly  led  to  Mr.  Haywood's  recall  from  the 
National  Executive  Committee  of  the  Socialist  Party. 
It  never  represented  the  accepted  views  of  the  So- 
cialist Party.  It  seems  to  me  that  the  passage  that 
you  read,  while  it  may  be  crude,  contains  a  good  deal 
of  sound  truth.  In  other  words,  what  it  means  is  that 
the  industrial  evolution  in  this  country  has  been  such 

S3 


as  to  bring  to  the  front  ever  larger  and  closer  indus- 
trial organizations  of  capital,  and  the  trade  unions 
evidently  will  have  to  adjust  themselves  to  the  new 
situation  and  reorganize  on  an  industrial  basis.  The 
American  Federation  of  Labor  might  not  say  it  in  so 
many  words,  but  I  think  it  has  felt  it,  and  I  think  it  is 
undergoing  a  process  of  change  in  its  organization 
just  now  in  that  very  direction. 

Mr.  Gompers:  You  read. the  proceedings  of  the 
American  Federation  of  Labor  fairly  carefully,  don't 
you,  Mr.  Hillquit? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Yes,  fairly  so. 

Mr.  Gompers:  Did  you  read  the  proceedings  of 
the  Rochester  convention  of  the  American  Federation 
of  Labor,  held  in  that  city,  in  191 2? 

Mr.  Hillquit  :  Yes,  I  did,  Mr.  Gompers. 

Mr.  Gompers:  Did  you  read  the  declaration  of  the 
Executive  Council  of  the  American  Federation  of 
Labor  on  the  subject  of  Industrial  Unionism? 

Mr.  Hillquit:   I  believe  so,  but  I  don't  recall  it. 

Mr.  Gompers:  It  didn't  make  sufficient  impression 
upon  your  mind  that  you  can  now  recall  it? 

Mr.  Hillquit  :  No,  but  if  you  will  be  kind  enough 
to  focus  my  attention  on  the  point  you  have  in  mind. 
I  suppose  I  shall  remember  it. 

Mr.  Gompers:   I  hand  you  a  copy  of  that  report. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Thank  you. 

Mr.  Gompers:  And  which,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  hope, 
may  be  marked  as  an  exhibit  now,  or  when  I  am  a 
witness  before  the  Commission  I  shall  have  the  oppor- 
tunity of  presenting  it  in  my  own  evidence. 

Chair,man  Walsh:  What  is  it? 

Mr.  Gompers:  A  report  made  by  the  Executive 
Council  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  to  the 
Rochester  Convention  of  that  Federation,  November, 
1912.  I  ask  Mr.  Hillquit  whether  he  had  kept  in- 
formed upon  the  work  of  the  American  Federation  of 
Labor,  and  he  said  that  he  did. 

54 


Chairman  Walsh  :  And  do  you  recognize  that  as 
being  the  paper  described? 

Mr.  Hillquit:    Yes. 

Chairman  Walsh  :  And  you  can  testify  that  it  is 
authentic? 

Mr.  Hillquit:   Oh,  yes,  it  is  that. 

Chairman  Walsh  :  Very  good,  let  it  go  in  evidence 
at  thfs  time. 

(Received  and  marked  "Hillquit's  Exhibit  A.") 

Mr.  Hillquit:  And  I  think  I  remember  the  con- 
tents pretty  well  now,  Mr  Gompers,  after  looking  ii 
over. 

Mr.  Gompers:  Mr.  Hillquit,  you  have  seen  that 
pamphlet  which  I  handed  you,  and  which  is  a  reprint 
of  the  report  of  the  Executive  Council  to  the  Roches- 
ter American  Federation  of  Labor  Convention.  Yon 
will  find  also  a  reprint  in  that  same  pamphlet  of  the 
report  of  the  committee  to  which  this  declaration  was 
referred  and  the  action  of  the  convention  thereon. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Yes. 

Mr.  Gompers:  Now,  as  an  advocate  of  industrial 
unionism,  will  you  point  out  to  the  Commission  that 
from  which  you  dissent? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Why,  but  Mr.  Gompers,  I  don't 
dissent.  I  stated,  on  the  contrary,  that  the  American 
Federation  of  Labor  is  rapidly  and  irresistibly  drifting 
into  industrial  organization,  and  I  am  very  glad  to 
notice  the  process. 

Mr.  Gompers:  Of  course,  we  are  all,  when  there  is 
anything  good  done,  no  matter  how  or  by  whom  or 
under  what  circumstances,  it  affords  us  all  satisfaction, 
but  that  is  not  the  question. 

Chairman  Walsh:  What  was  the  question, 
whether  or  not,  he  dissented  from  anything  said  in 
there  ? 

Mr.  Hillquit:   From  what  view  I  dissented. 

Chairman  Walsh  :  Do  you  dissent? 

Mr.  Hillquit  :  I  do  not  dissent. 

55 


Chairman  Walsh  :   That  answers  it. 

Mr.  Gompers:  Then,  sir,  if  you  don't  dissent  from 
the  declaration  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor 
upon  the  subject  of  Industrial  Unionism,  will  you 
please  tell  the  Commission  how  it  comes  that  Mr.  Debs 
and  many  other  Socialists,  whose  names  I  can  mention 
at  this  time,  advocate  the  dissolution  of  the  American 
Federation  of  Labor  on  the  question  of  Industrial 
Unionism  ? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  I  cannot  answer  for  the  operation 
of  the  mind  of  Mr.  Debs  or  anybody  else,  but  I  may 
point  out  the  following,  first:  That  the  first  declara- 
tion on  Industrial  Unionism  promulgated  by  Mr.  Debs 
and  his  comrades,  when  organizing  the  I.  W.  W.,  was 
adopted  in  1905,  and  the  declaration  of  the  Federation 
of  Labor  was  adopted  in  19 12,  seven  years  later.  That 
is,  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  once  more  fol- 
lowed in  the  wake  of  the  Socialist  agitation.  The  next 
point,  Mr.  Gompers,  is  that  I  understand  the  differ- 
ence between  the  industrialism  advocated  by  you  and 
the  industrialism  advocated  by  the  I.  W.  W.,  and  par- 
ticularly by  Mr.  Debs,  to  be  that  the  industrial  form 
of  organization  which  you  advocate  consists  of  a  fed- 
eration of  similar  crafts  or  trades  within  one  industry, 
not  organically  united  to  co-operate  with  each  other  in 
matters  of  common  interest,  and  that  the  industrial 
form  of  organization  advocated  by  Mr.  Debs  is  an  or- 
ganic union  of  all  crafts  embodied  within  one  industry. 

Mr.  Gompers:  You  know,  I  had  already  questioned 
you  upon  the  declarations  made  by  Mr.  Debs  in  1905  ? 

Mr.  Hillquit:   Yes. 

Mr.  Gompers:  My  last  question  has  reference  to 
the  article  written  by  Mr.  Debs,  appealing  t6  the 
unions  within  these  past  two  weeks  to  secede  and  sup- 
plant the  American  Federation. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  You  have  asked  me  that  before,  Mr. 
Gompers,  and  I  have  answered  before  that  the  So- 
cialist Party  does  not  stand  sponsor  for  those  plans. 

56 


The  Socialist  Party  is  no  more  responsible  for  them 
than  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  would  be  for 
an  expression  of  an  executive  member  of  its  Board  on 
the  subject  of  religion. 

Mr.  Gompers:  In  that  article  addressed  to  the 
United  Mine  Workers  of  America,  and  to  the  Western 
Federation  of  Miners,  he  says  that  the  American  Fed- 
eration of  Labor  as  an  aggregation  of  craft  unions  has 
outlived  its  usefulness. 

Mr.  Hillquit:    I  don't  agree  with  this  opinion. 

Mr.  Gompers  :  I  want  to  call  your  attention  to  the 
fact  that  the  same  article  is  published  in  the  United 
Mine  Workers  Journal  and  in  the  Western  Federa- 
tion of  Miners'  official  magazine,  the  Miners'  Mag- 
azine.    In  the  latter  it  is  published  without  comment. 

In  the  United  Mine  Workers'  Journal  it  is  published 
with  an  introductory  editorial  note  strongly  dissent- 
ing from  that  view.  That  editorial,  on  page  4  of  the 
United  Mine  Workers'  Journal  of  Thursday,  May 
14th,  1914,  bears  the  heading,  "Secession  Not  the  Way 
to  Unity,"  Do. you  agree  with  the  view  expressed  by 
the  editor  of  the  United  Mine  Workers'  Magazine  in 
that  heading? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Yes.  The  United  Mine  Workers' 
Journal,  of  course,  which  prints  a  comment,  and  the 
magazine  of  the  Western  Federation  of  Miners,  are 
your  organs;  that  is,  both  organizations  belong  to  the 
American  Federation  of  Labor. 

Mr.  Gompers:  Yes,  and  Debs  advocated  the  seces- 
sion of  both  those  organizations  from  the  American 
Federation  of  Labor,  they  to  call  a  convention  of  all 
organizations  and  to  form  what  he  calls  an  industrial 
union,  one  big  union  to  take  the  place  of  the  American 
Federation  of  Labor. 

Mr.  Hillquit  :  I  am  inclined  to  agree,  Mr.  Gom- 
pers, with  the  editorial  you  mention.  I  don't  believe 
secession  from  the  Federation  is  the  way  to  reform. 
I  think  the  A.  F.  of  L.  is  fully  capable  of  progress  and 

57 


enlightenmerit;  and  I  believe  it  is  one  of  the  functions 
of  the  Sociahst  Party  to  carry  on  such  education  as 
possible  within  the  ranks  of  the  A.  F.  of  L.,  and  I 
have  no  doubt  at  all  that  ultimately  the  members  of 
the  A.  F.  of  L.  will  be  just  as  enlightened  and  pro- 
gressive as  members  of  any  other  organization. 

Mr.  Gompers:  Of  course,  those  who  are  so  thor- 
oughly educated  that  they  can  learn  nothing,  know 
it  all,  and  we  are  not  of  that  character. 

Mr.  HiLLQuir:  The  leaders  of  the  A.  F.  of  L.  are 
not  of  that  character. 

Chairman  Walsh  :  That  is  not  a  question  and 
really  has  no  place  in  the  record. 

Mr.  Gompers:  Mr.  Chairman,  nor  was  that  an  an- 
swer, nor  was  the  statement  made  by  Mr.  Hillquit  a 
pertinent  answer  to  my  question. 

Chairman  Walsh  :   I  don't  think  so  either. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Pardon  me.  The  Chairman  of 
the  Commission  having  agreed  with  the  ques- 
tioner, I  must  take  exception  to  it.  The  question 
was,  if  you  will  recall,  "Do  you  agree  with  this  edi- 
torial or  the  thought  expressed  in  it?"  That  cer- 
tainly called  for  an  answer  as  to  whether  or  not  I 
agreed  with  those  views,  and  upon  what  grounds,  and 
I  do  not  see  why  my  answer  was  not  perfectly  re- 
sponsive. I  would  be,  if  tested  by  the  strictest  rules 
of  evidence,  and  I  think  it  should  be  before  this  Com- 
mission. 

Chairman  Walsh  :  I  may  be  wrong.  I  made  an 
oflf-hand  decision  there  to  get  through  with  it.  It  is 
generally  leading  to  an  argument  of  a  rather  ex- 
traneous nature. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Yes,  but  when  an  opinion  is  called 
for,  it  must  be  expressed. 

Mr.  Gompers:  I  say  just  this.  This  may  appear 
as  rather  long  drawn  out,  but  I  think  that  since  the 
Commission  has  entered  into  this  domain,  it  will  ob- 
tain more  fundamental  information  upon  the  construc- 

58 


tive  work  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor 
and  the  destructive  tactics  employed  by  other 
elements  than  can  be  obtained  in  any  other  way.  If 
you  did  not  care  to  have  this  discussion  opened  up 
wide,  it  might  have  been  better  then  that  it  had  not 
been  opened  up  at  all.  T  am  perfectly  willing  to  sub- 
mit myself  to  the  examination  of  Mr,  Hillquit.  He  is 
a  lawyer ;  I  am  not.  I  have  no  parchment  nor  diploma 
of  which  I  can  boast.  Simply  the  plain,  ordinary  ex- 
perience of  a  workingman,  who  has  tried  to  learn 
something,  and,  as  I  have  said  this  morning,  when  I 
am  on  the  stand,  I  play  this  game  with  my  cards  down 
and  face  up,  nothing  to  hide,  nothing  to  equivocate, 
nothing  to  evade,  and  everything  that  this  Commis- 
sion will  want  to  know  in  connection  with  the  Amer- 
ican Federation  of  Labor  will  be  spread  before  you. 

Chairman  Walsh  :   You  may  proceed. 

Mr.  Gompers:  Conceding  the  fact  that  the  Amer- 
ican Federation  of  Labor  and  its  rank  and  file  and  its 
officers  are  learning  a  bit,  now,  in  view  of  the  declara- 
tion on  industrial  unionism  adopted  by  the  convention 
of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  in  191 2,  I  ask 
you  what  dissent  you  have  to  make,  as  a  Socialist  be- 
lieving in  industrial  unionism,  what  dissent  you  have 
to  make  against  this  decoration  ? 

Chairman  Walsh  :  Without  in  any  way  undertak- 
ing to  limit  this  examination,  or  to  shorten  its  scope  in 
any  way,  I  am  going  to  rule  that  the  question  has  been 
fully  answered  by  the  witness,  that  he  dissents  in  no 
way  whatever,  and  he  gave  an  explanation,  if  I  am 
correct. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  May  I  reply  to  that,  Mr,  Chairman? 

Chairman  Walsh  :  Unless  there  is  some  dissent 
from  the  Commission,  I  will  rule  that  that  question  has 
been  asked  and  answered.  You  may  proceed  now  to 
another  question. 

Mr.  Gompers:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  must  yield,  of 
course,  even  if  I  desire  not  to. 

59 


Chairman  Walsh  :   Certainly. 

Mr.  Gompers:  And  I  yield,  and  I  hope  I  may  do  so 
gracefully.  May  I  suggest  this  to  Your  Honors,  that 
after  the  witness  has  said  that  he  has  no  dissent  to 
express  from  the  declaration,  he  then  said  further  that 
upon  this  very  subject  we  need  education  from  him 
and  his  associates. 

Chairman  Walsh  :   I  have  passed  upon  that. 

Mr.  Gompers:  Do  you  know_  Mr.  William  English 
Walling? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Slightly. 

Mr.  Gompers:   How  slightly? 

I  have  met  him,    spoken  to  him 
am  not  intimately  acquainted  with 


Mr.  Hillquit 
several  times.  I 
him. 

Mr.  Gompers: 

Mr.  Hillquit 

Mr.  Gompers; 
writings,  have  you  not? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Yes 

Mr.  Gompers: 
Party? 

Mr.  Hillquit  : 
I  don't  know. 

Mr.  Gompers: 

Mr.  Hillquit  : 

Mr.  Gompers: 


But  you  know  of  him? 
Oh,  yes. 
And  you  have  read  some  of  his 


He  is  a  member  of  the  Socialist 
He  surely  was.    Whether  he  is  now 


You  don't  "know  now? 

No. 

Do  you  know  that  in  the  New  York 
Call  on  December  ii,  1909,  he  said:  "The  Socialist 
Party  has  become  a  hissing  and  a  by- word  with  the 
actual  wage  earners  of  America.  It  is  becoming  the 
party  of  two  extremes:  On  the  one  side  are  a  bunch 
of  intellectuals  like  myself  and  Spargo  and  Hunter  and 
Hillquit;  on  the  other  is  a  bunch  of  never-works, 
demagogues  and  would-be  intellectuals,  a  veritable 
'lumpen  proletariat.'  The  average  wage  earners,  the 
men  who  are  really  doing  the  class  struggle,  are  out- 
side.  Above  al!  else  we  must  have  the  union  man. 
No  one  has  denounced  the  efforts  of  the  American 


60 


Federation  of  Labor  more  than  I,  but  I  am  forced  to 
recognize  that  it  comes  much  nearer  to  representing 
the  working  class  than  the  Socialist^  Party,  and  unless 
we  are  able  to  shape  our  policy  and  our  organization  so 
as  to  meet  the  demands  and  incarnate  the  position  of 
the  workers,  we  will  have  failed  of  our  mission."  Do 
you  assent  or  dissent  from  the  expression  of  Mr.  Wall- 
ing on  that  subject? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  With  a  few  qualifications  I  assent 
But  first  a  correction,  Mr.  Gompers.  You  got  mixed 
up  in  your  text  somewhat.  That  is  not  an  expression 
by  Walling.  It  is  an  expression  by  A.  M.  Simons, 
contained  in  a  private  letter  to  Walling,  which  Walling 
published,  although  he  had  no  business  to.  It  is  a 
heart-to-heart  talk,  such  as  perhaps  you  might  have 
with  an  intimate  friend  on  the  A.  F.  of  L.  Board.  1 
believe  the  reference  to  the  "lumpen  proletariat'  is 
grossly  exaggerated,  and  that  the  reference  to  the  "in- 
tellectuals" is  somewhat  unjust.  I  think,  however, 
that  the  statement  that  the  Socialist  Party  must  seek 
the  support  of  the  working  class  of  this  country  is 
absolutely  correct.  The  Socialist  Party  has  been  work- 
ing along  these  lines  for  a  number  of  years  and  has 
so  far  succeeded  fairly  well.  I  suppose  it  will  succeed 
•  still  more. 

Mr.  Gompers  :  Do  you  recall  a  statement  appearing 
in  the  New  York  Call  of  November  28th,  1909,  made 
by  Mr,  John  Spargo,  in  which  he  said:  "In  further- 
ance of  the  ambitions  of  a  few  men  of  small  minds, 
and  even  smaller  hearts,  the  whole  movement  is  being 
dragged  into  the  mire,  and  the  heart  of  every  sincere 
Socialist  sickens  with  shame  at  the  spectacle.  No 
depth  of  degradation  and  dishonor  has  been  reached  by 
any  capitalist  party  in  its  sordid  strivings,  which  has 
not  also  been  attained  by  American  Socialists."  ? 

Mr.  Hillquit  :  I  recall  that  passage.  I  think  it  is  h 
bit  rhetorical,  but  we  always  do  practice  self-criti- 

61 


cism,  which  results  in  a  process  of  purification  and 
improvement. 

Mr.  Gompers:    What  was  the  attitude  of  the  So 
cialist  Party  then  in  existence  toward  the  American 
Labor  Union  formed  by  Mr.  Debs? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  The  American  Labor  Union,  if  you 
will  permit  me  to  correct  you,  was  not  formed  by  Mr. 
Debs.  The  Socialist  Party's  attitude  toward  the 
American  Labor  Union  was  no  different  than  its  atti- 
tude toward  the  L  W.  W.  The  Socialist  Party  as 
such  did  not  take  any  sides  in  the  quarrel  between  the 
American  Labor  Union  and  the  A.  F.  of  L. 

Mr.  Gompers:    Did  not  Mr.  Debs  and  his  associ- 
ates of  the  American  Railway  Union  form  the  Amer 
ican  Labor  Union? 

Mr.  Hillquit  :  They  did  not. 

Mr.  Gomper,s:  Are  you  quite  sure  of  that? 

Mr.  Hillquit  :  I  am,  and  I  am  surprised  that  you 
are  not.  The  American  Labor  Union  was  formed  by 
the  United  Association  of  the  Hotel  and  Restaurant 
Employees,  the  Western  Federation  of  Miners,  and 
the  Western  Labor  Union  at  a  convention  of  those 
organizations.*  The  American  Railway  Union 
merged  with  the  Brotherhood  of  the  Co-operative 
Commonwealth  which  published  a  paper  of  its  own, 
and  later  developed  into  the  Social  Democracy  of 
America. 

Mr.  Gompers:  This  morning  you  expressed  views 
which  seemed  to  indicate  that  you  believed  in  the  con- 
stant, gradual,  material  improvement  of  the  conditions 
of  the  working  people  as  a  thing  which  should  be  en- 
couraged for  the  attainment  of  the  ultimate  ends  of 
your  party  or  your  philosophy  ? 

Mr.  Hillquit:   Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Gompers:  Is  it  your  ojpinion,  then,  that  the 
declaration  is  true,  that  "the  present  social  system  is 


'Held  in  Denver  in  1902. 

62 


inevitably  converting  the  workers  into  a  propertyless 
proletariat,  possessing  nothing  but  their  labor  powers ; 
is  productive  of  an  increase  of  misery,  oppression,  en- 
slavement, debasement  and  exploitation"? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Why,  I  think  the  passage  in  the 
main  is  correct.  It  was  written  about  50  years  ago 
by  Marx.  It  has  been  the  subject  of  many  contro- 
versies, the  question  turning  on  just  what  he  meant  by 
"misery,  debasement,"  and  so  on.  But  it  is  the  gen- 
eral consensus  of  Socialist  opinion  that  the  number  of 
the  propertyless  class  of  workers  is  on  the  increase, 
and  that  the  working  class,  on  the  whole,  gets  pro- 
portionately a  lesser  share  of  the  general  national 
wealth  from  year  to  year.  At  the  same  time  there  is 
a  noticeable  and  absolute  improvement  in  the  condi- 
tion of  at  least  a  large  section  of  the  working  class, 

Mr.  Gompers:  In  your  explanation  as  to  the  con- 
dition of  society  under  Socialism,  you  spoke  of  the 
industries  which  have  practically  become  socialized 
and  may  be  taken  over  in  their  operation  and  control, 
and  you  said  that  smaller  industries,  with  smaller 
tools,  owned  by  the  individual,  would  not  come  under 
collective  control  and  ownership  and  management,  but 
that  they  would  be  left  to  the  individual — did  you  not? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  I  said,  there  is  nothing  in  the  So- 
cialist program  requiring  collective  ownership  of 
purely  individual  industries,  not  based  upon  hiring  or 
exploitation  of  labor. 

Mr.  Gompers:  How  long  since  has  that  distinction 
been  made  as  between  all  the  means  of  production  and 
distribution  and  the  definition  which  you  now  give? 

Mr.  Hillquit  :  A  very  long  time  ago,  Mr.  Gompers. 

Mr,  Gompers:  I  mean,  authoritatively? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  I  think  authoritatively  there  never 
has  been  any  different  conception.  It  was  first  clearly 
expressed,  as  I  believe,  by  Karl  Kautsky,  about  a 
dozen  years  ago,  or  so. 

Mr.  Gompers:    How  long  has  it  been  since  that 

63 


declaration  has  been  made  by  the  American  Sociahst 
Party? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  There  has  not,  at  any  time,  to  my 
knowledge,  been  a  specific  or  formal  declaration  made; 
but  my  understanding  is  that  it  has  always  been  the 
theoretical  conception  of  the  American  Socialist  Party, 

Mr.  Gomper,s:  The  American  Socialist  Party  ha:5 
always  declared,  until  quite  recently,  for  the  national- 
ization of  all  of  the  means  of  production  and  distribu- 
tion, has  it  not? 

Mr.  Hillquit  :  I  don't  think  the  word  "all"  occurs 
in  any  authoritative  exposition  of  the  principles  of 
the  Party. 

Mr.  GoMPERs:  But  by  the  omission  of  the  word 
"all,"  and  without  any  qualification,  nevertheless  no 
other  inference  could  be  drawn  from  that  declara- 
tion, could  it? 

Mr.  Hillquit:    I  would  not  say  that  was  true. 

Mr.  Gompers  :  Suppose  I  should  say  that  this  court 
room  belonged  to  the  State  of  New  York  or  the  City 
of  New  York,  it  would  not  be  necessary  for  me  to 
say  that  all  the  entire  court  room  belonged 

Mr.  Hillquit:  No,  not  in  that  connection,  but  I 
should  think  that  the  comparison  is  somewhat  unfor- 
tunate. If  I  should  say  that  Mr.  Gompers  can  he 
heard  by  the  people  in  the  audience,  it  would  not 
necessarily  imply  that  he  could  be  heard  by  all. 

Mr.  Gompers:  For  instance,  if  you  put  it  this 
way:  "The  Socialist  Party  demands  the  nationaliza- 
tion of  the  means  of  production  and  distribution." 
The  absence  of  the  word  "all"  there  would  not  at  all 
minimize  the  extent,  would  it? 

Mr,  Hillquit:  In  my  conception  of  it,  Mr.  Gom- 
pers, and  I  can  give  you  only  my  understanding  of  it, 
I  should  say  that  the  Socialist  Party  has  always  stcKxl 
for  the  collective  ownership  of  social  tools  of  produc- 
tion and  distribution. 

Mr.  Gompers:  As  a  matter  of  fact,  isn't  it  so? 
We  need  not  quibble — ■— 

64 


Mr.  Hillquit:    (Interrupting)  :  I  am  not  quibbling. 

Mr.  Gompers:  Isn't  it  so  that  it  has  been  only 
within  the  past  two  or  three  years  that  the  Sociahst 
Party  has  made  that  distinction? 

Mr.  Hillquit  :  No,  Mr.  Gompers.  You  may  have 
noticed  it  within  the  past  two  or  three  years,  but  the 
entire  Sociahst  philosophy  has  always  been  based  upon 
the  conception  that  the  tools  of  the  work  have  become 
social  in  character  and  consequently  Socialism  always 
dealt  with  the  social  tool  and  never  with  the 
individual. 

Mr.  Gompers:  I  refer  to  the  declaration  excluding 
any  private  property. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  There  was  no  such  exclusion  ?.t 
any  time.  Private  property  in  articles  of  consumption 
has  always  been  recognized  and  sanctioned  by  the 
Socialists;  and  as  to  the  means  of  production,  it  is 
not  my  understanding — and  I  think  I  am  more  or 
less  conversant  with  the  literature  on  the  subject — 
that  it  ever  was  intended  to  embrace  within  that  cate- 
gory the  individual  tool  or  the  individual  industry. 

Mr^  Gompers  :  Take,  for  instance,  the  boot  and 
shoe  industry.  There  are  shoemakers  and  bootmakers 
who  are  engaged  in  artistic  shoemaking  and  make  the 
whole  shoe,  using  but  few  tools.  If  the  boot  and  shoe 
industry  became  socialized,  and  owned  and  controlled 
collectively,  would  there  be  a  seperate  arrangement  for 
the  artistic  boot  and  shoemaker? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Now,  Mr.  Gompers,  I  don't  see 
any  reason  in  the  world  why  the  artistic  boot  and  shoe- 
maker should  not  continue  to  be  an  artistic  boot  and 
shoemaker  under  Socialism.  I  don't  believe  there 
would  be  any  socialization  of  the  individual  shoe;  at 
least,  I  should  not  wear  it,  if  it  were. 

Mr.  Gompers:  The  answer,  of  course,  is  quite 
germane.  • 

Mr.  Hillquit:   To  the  question. 

Mr.  Gompers:   Do  you  regard  it  as  a  fact  that  in 

65 


the  United  States  "the  bourgeoisie  has  converted  the 
position  of  the  lawer,  the  priest,  the  poet,  the  man  of 
science  into  its  paid  wage  laborers"? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Why,  it  is  somewhat  exaggerated, 
but  substantially  true.  I  can  speak  for  the  lawyers. 
(Laughter.) 

Mr.  Gompers:  Do  you  believe  that  the  statement, 
quoting  again  from  Socialist  authority:  "Chattel 
slavery  is  dead,  a  greater  slavery  has  grown  up  in  its 
place.  Wage  slavery  is  so  murh  greater  than  chattel 
slavery  as  the  white  people  in  this  country  are  more 
numerous  than  the  black  people"  ? 

Mr.  Hillquit  :  I  think  that  is  substantially  correct. 

Mr.  Gompers:  Do  you  agree  with  the  estimate  that 
in  the  United  States  the  number  of  men  out  of  work 
are  more  than  five  million? 

Mr.  Hillquit  :  At  some  time  or  another.  I  believe 
the  census  of  1900  gives  the  number  of  partially  un- 
employed during  the  year  at  6,000,000. 

Mr.  Gompers:    Which  authority? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  The  1900  census.  The  figure  is 
based  on  the  total  of  workers  unemployed  during  all 
or  part  of  the  year. 

Mr.  Gompers:  Do  you  regard  the  Communist 
Manifesto  of  Marx  and  Engels  as  on  the  whole  cor- 
rect, as  correct  to-day  as  ever? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  That  was  published  in  1848. 

Mr.  Gompers:  Do  you  regard  the  general  prin- 
ciples laid  down  in  that  manifesto  as  on  the  whole 
as  correct  to-day  as  ever? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  The  general  principles,  yes.  The 
details,  perhaps  not. 

Mr.  Gompers  :  Do  you  accept  or  repudiate  the  term, 
or  the  idea  of  communism? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  The  term  "Communist"  as  used 
in  the  Communist  Manifesto  signified  soniefthing  en- 
tirely different  from  what  it  signifies  now.  What  the 
authors  of  the  Communist  Manifesto  meant  by  the 

66 


term  "Communist"  is  what  we  mean  to-day  by  the 
term  "Socialist." 

Mr.  Gompers:  I  should  judge  from  the  testimony 
you  gave  this  morning  that  you  do  not  accept  the 
theory  of  cataclysm  as  a  means  to  bring  about  the 
co-operative  commonwealth? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  I  do  not  believe  in  the  cataclysm 
theory. 

Mr.  Gompers:  Your  answers  would  indicate  that 
the  Socialist  predictions  of  several  years  ago  have 
scarcely  been  verified,  including  the  inability  of  any 
government,  either  to  destroy  or  regulate  the  corpor- 
ate existence  of  capital,  such  as  trusts? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  The  question  is,  whether  I  admit 
that  this  prediction  was  wrong? 

Mr.  Gompers:  I  simply  want,  if  I  can,  to  have  you 
verify,  or  rather,  re-state,  by  yes  or  no,  or  in  such  a 
way  as  you  may  care  to  whether  there  is  to  be  in  our 
society  an  evolutionary  continuous  improvement  in  the 
condition  of  the  workers  up  to  the  point  that  may  be 
regarded  as  a  goal  or  a  constant  improvement  ? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  You  asked  two  question,  there, 
Mr.  Gompers.  As  to  the  ability  of  the  Government 
to  regulate  or  destroy  business  corporations  or  trusts, 
I  still  believe  that  the  Government  is  quite  incapable 
of  doing  so. 

As  to  the  process  of  gradual  improvement,  I  be- 
lieve in  it.  But  whether  such  process  of  gradual  im- 
provement will  eventually  lead  up  to  Socialism  with- 
out violent,  social  or  political  disturbance,  or  civil 
war,  I  don't  know. 

Mr.  Gompers:  Do  you  not  see  a  departure  from 
Marx'  conception  in  the  development  of  the  joint 
stock  company? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Decidedly  not.  On  the  contrary  a 
verification  of  his  theory  of  concentration  of  capital. 

Mr,.  Gompers:  Then  you  think  that  the  growth  and 
ownership  of  the  joint  stock  company  is  a  refutation 

(>1 


of  the  theory  of  the  development  of  the  capitalist 
classes,  or  Marx'  theory  of  the  capitalist  class? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  I  don't  think  so.  On  the  contrary 
I  think,  as  I  said,  it  is  a  verification  of  it. 

Mr.  Gdmpers:  Do  you  regard  the  population  of  the 
United  States,  as  divided  into  a  small  master  class 
and  a  vast  servant  class? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  No  such  conception  was  ever  ex- 
pressed by  any  authoritative  Socialist  author.  What 
you  read  in  the  Communist  Manifesto  is  an  assertion 
that  the  population  tends  to  develop  into  such  two 
classes.  That  condition  has  by  far  not  been  reached 
in  the  United  States. 

Mr.  Gompers  :  Do  you  believe  that  the  children 
of  the  working  class  are  doomed  to  ignorance,  drudg- 
ery, toil  and  darkened  lives  in  the  United  States? 

Mr.  Hillquit:   Very  largely,  Mr.  Gompers. 

•Mr.  Gompers:  When  you  say  that  we  have 
secured,  or  are  securing,  a  material  improvement  m 
the  general  conditions  of  the  working  people,  and  the 
people  generally,  it  does  not  confonn  to  your  latest 
answer.  Whicli  is  true,  your  latest  answer  or  your 
answer  this  morning? 

Mr.  Hillquit  :  Both  are  absolutely  true.  We  have 
improved  conditions  somewhat,  but  our  achievements 
are  as  nothing  compared  with  what  is  still  to  come. 
I  presume  that,  as  president  of  the  American  Federa- 
tion of  Labor,  you  know  that  we  still  have  the  evil  of 
child  labor  with  us  in  an  abominably  large  extent. 

Mr.  Gomvers  :  I  have  been  admonished  that  I  must 
not  argue  with  you^  and  I  have  no  desire  to  do  so. 
But  I  want  to  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  you 
said  just  now  that  you  agreed  largely  with  this  state- 
ment :  "The  children  of  the  working  class  are  doomei 
to  ignorance,  drudgery,  toil  and  darkened  lives."  If 
you  say  that  this  is  a  fact,  how  does  it  conform  with 
your  statement  this  morning  as  to  the  general  gradual 

68 


improvement  of  the  conditions  of  the  working  class, 
which,  of  course,  includes  the  children? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  If  you  will  read  the  document  fur- 
ther, you  will  get  your  answer.  The  children  of  the 
working  class  are  doomed  to  the  lives  described  un- 
less something  very  radical  is  done  to  relieve  them 
from    it. 

Mr.  Gompers:  Do  you  believe,  Mr.  Hillquit,  in  col- 
lective bargaining  between  workmen  and  their  em- 
ployers ? 

Mr.  Hillquit:   I  do. 

Mr.  Gompers:  During  the  pendency  of  an  agree- 
ment, it  may  prevent  workmen  from  honorably  asking 
for  an  increase  in  wages  in  the  event  of  industrial 
conditions  improving.  It  also  has  the  tendency,  does 
it  not,  to  prevent  reduction  in  wages  in  the  event  of 
a  falling  off  in  the  trade  ? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  I  think  it  does  both,  but  the  prin- 
cipal consideration,  in  my  mind,  is  that  the  practice  of 
collective  bargaining  causes  the  workers  to  uniie  and 
to  act  collectively,  and  the  employers  likewise.  The 
struggles  between  them  are  thus  better  organized.  It 
also  tends  to  strengthen  the  solidarity  of  the  workers. 

Mr.  GompeRjS:  Do  you  know  that  several  sections 
of  the  Socialist  Party  and  labor  papers,  their  official 
papers,  encouraged  and  aided  a  small  organization 
known  as  the  United  Boot  and  Shoe  Makers,  in  op- 
position to  the  Boot  and  Shoe  Workers'  International 
Union  ? 

Mr.  Hillquit  :  I  think  you  are  going  back  again 
to  the  old  days  of  the  Socialist  Labor  Party.  Is  that 
when  the  struggle  occurred? 

•   Mr.  Gompers:    I  asked  you  whether  you  had  no- 
ticed it  within  these  past  three  months? 

Mr.  Hillquit  :   No,  sir. 

Mr.  Gompers:  It  could  have  occurred  without  your 
knowing  it? 

69 


Mr.  Hillquit:  Oh,  yes.  I  cannot  follow  or  con- 
trol the  300  Socialist  papers  we  have  in  this  country. 

Mr.  Gompers:  Is  it  not  true,  Mr.  Hillquit,  that  the 
radical  movement  in  Europe  has  been  greatly  changed 
in  the  past  20  years  ? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  You  mean  the  Socialist  movement? 

Mr.  Gompers:  Let  me  put  the  question  in  thi-5 
form:  Is  it  or  is  it  not  a  fact  that  the  radical  move- 
ment in  Europe  has  been  greatly  changed  in  the  past 
20  years,  mainly  in  these  respects — I  want  to  read  tht 
questions  and  then  if  you  should  desire  that  I  read 
them  separately,  I  shall  be  very  glad  to  do  so. 

Mr.  Hillquit:   Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Gompers:  i. — In  the  general  recognition  of 
the  necessity  to  work  for  democratic  rule  as  the  firbt 
step  for  the  welfare  of  the  masses. 

Would  you  prefer  to  answer  now  ? 

Mr.  Hillquit:    I  would  rather  hear  all  questions. 

Mr.  Gompers:  2. — Consequently,  in  concentrating 
political  efforts  on  obtaining  uniform  suffrage  for 
male  citizens,  with  just  representation  in  legislative 
bodies,  and  an  influence  in  administration  proportion- 
ate to  the  powers  of  the  people  in  general. 

3. — In  conducting  the  struggles  of  the  masses  in 
European  countries  to  obtain  rights  long  exercised  by 
the  citizens  of  the  United  States. 

4. — In  abandoning  the  theory  of  the  inevitable  soci.il 
cataclysm  predicted  by  Marx,  and  falling  into  line  with 
the  labor  movement  of  Great  Britain  and  the  United 
States,  the  first  step  being  toward  trade  union  organ- 
ization, which  in  Germany  has  come  to  dominate  all 
great  branches  of  the  social  movement  of  the  masses, 
in  the  adoption  and  energetic  promotion  of  the  plan  of 
voluntary  co-operation,  the  necessary  function  of 
which  is  independence  of  the  state. 

If  you  prefer,  I  shall  halt  here. 

Mr^  Hillquit:  You  may.  The  Socialist  move- 
ment abroad  has  not  changed  or  modified  its  program 

70 


within  the  last  20  years.  It  has  changed  its  practical 
methods  somewhat.  It  always  does.  It  learns  from 
experience.  It  is  not  any  more  conservative  to-day 
than  it  was  20  years  ago.  It  has  struggled  for  politi- 
cal rights  and  universal  suffrage  ever  since  the  ex- 
istence of  an  organized  Socialist  movement  in  Europe. 
Some  of  its  political  demands  are  for  rights  which  we 
in  the  United  States  already  possess.  Others  are  for 
rights  which  we  do  not  possess,  as  for  instance,  pro- 
portional representation. 

On  the  economic  field,  the  Socialist  parties  in 
Europe  are,  as  a  rule,  considerably  in  advance  of  the 
labor  movement  here,  for  the  simple  reason  that  they 
have  accomplished  more  than  we  have  accomplished 
here.  The  co-operation  of  the  Socialist  parties  with 
the  trade  unions  is  by  no  manner  of  means  a  novel 
feature.  It  always  has  existed,  and,  in  Continental 
Europe,  most  of  the  trade  unions  were  directly  cre- 
ated, organized  and  called  into  life  by  the  Socialist 
parties.  The  German  trade  union  movement  does  not 
dominate  the  labor  movement  of  Germany.  It  is  co- 
ordinate with  the  Socialist  movement,  except  that  the 
voice  of  Social  Democracy  is  somewhat  more  author- 
itative in  the  joint  counsels  of  the  two  wings  of  the 
labor  movement. 

What  else  have  you  there,  Mr.  Gompers?  Have 
you  any  other  questions  that  I  have  not  answered? 

Mr.  Gompers:  I  want  to  ask  you:  You  say  that 
the  demands  of  the  organized  workers  of  Germany 
are  far  in  advance  of  those  of  the  United  States.  Are 
the  material  conditions  of  the  working  people  of  Ger- 
many better  than  they  are  in  the  United  States? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  I  think  they  are  decidedly  better, 
because  they  are  more  secure.  The  worst  feature  of 
the  labor  conditions  in  America  is  the  worker's  in- 
security of  existence,  the  dread  of  the  morrow,  and 
I  think  that  has  been  largely  obviated  in  Germany 
through  a  comprehensive  system  of  social  insurance, 

71 


which  takes  care  of  tlie  workers  in  case  of  sickness, 
permanent  disablHty,  accident  and  old  age. 

The  problem  of  unemployment  is  also  not  as  acute 
among  German  workmen  as  it  is  among  American 
workmen.  And,  taking  it  all  in  all,  I  think  that  the 
German  workman  is  considerably  better  off  than  the 
American  workman. 

Mr.  Gompers  :  Supposing  the  representatives  of  the 
German  workmen  disagree  with  that  view,  would  you 
think  you  would  have  cause  to  revise  your  judgment? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  No,  sir.  That  alone  would  not 
cause  me  to  revise  my  judgment,  because  it  would 
imply  that  those  German  labor  representatives  had  a 
better  knowledge  of  the  conditions  of  workers,  both 
in  Germany  and  the  United  States,  and  until  I  were 
sure  of  that,  I  would  not  revise  my  judgment. 

Mr.  Gomper.s:  Have  you  read  Mr.  Legien's  book 
which  he  has  recently  published? 

Mr.  Hillquit:    Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Gompers:  As  to  the  rights  of  German  workers, 
do  you  know  that  public  meetings,  when  held  in  Ger- 
many, must  be  under  police  authority? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Yes,  sir;  all  political  meetings  of 
any  kind — and  it  is  very  objectionable,  but  it  is  not 


half  as  bad- 

Mr.  Gompers:    Now,  you  are  arguing  with  me. 

M^.  Hillquit:  No,  sir,  I  am  answering. 

Mr.  Gompers  :  I  am  asking  you  as  to  the  conditions 
in  Germany. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  It  is  a  broad  question,  Mr.  Gom- 
pers, and  I  cannot  always  answer  just  so  as  to  please 
you.  Your  question  was  about  the  conditions  of  the 
German  workman  with  reference  to  the  right  of  suf- 
frage and  free  speech,  was  it  not  ? 

Mr.  Gompers:   Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  My  answer  to  that  is,  that  in  Ger- 
many the  workers,  not  as  workers,  but  as  citizens,  are 
subject  to  certain  police  supervision  in  all  of  their 

72 


political  meetings.  And  I  say,  witli  all  that,  they  ex- 
ercise on  the  whole,  greater  freedom  of  speech  and 
greater  personal  security  than  the  workers  here.  Ger- 
many has  never  had  a  case  like  Colorado  or  West 
Virginia. 

Mr.  Gompers  :  Do  you  know  that  in  Germany  they 
permit  no  language  to  be  spoken  at  any  meeting  other 
than  the  German  language? 

Mr.  Hillquit  :  I  don't  think  they  know  any  other 
language  but  German.     But,  really,  Mr.  Gompers 

Mr.  Gompers:  I  suppose  that  we,  all  of  us,  can  be 
facetious,  if  we  want  to.     -  • 

Mr.  Hillquit:   Occasionally. 

Mr.  Gompers:  But  I  asked  you  this  question, 
whether  it  is  a  fact? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  I  understand  that  the  police  au- 
thorities are  present  at  every  political  meeting  in  Ger- 
many, and  have  the  right  to  close  the  meeting  in  case 
of  certain  utterances,  and  that  for  that  purpose  they 
must  be  familiar  with  the  language  the  speaker  uses. 
The  German  police  have  the  right  to  prohibit  the  use 
of  foreign  languages  at  public  meetings. 

Mr.  Gompers  :  I  agree  with  you  in  your  remarks 
as  to  Colorado,  but  I  do  not  as  to  the  German  propo- 
sition. Do  you  know  that  the  German  trade  unions 
are  forbidden  by  law  to  deal  with  any  political 
question  ? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Not  any  political  question,  as  far 
as  my  knowledge  goes.  I  know  that  the  trade  unions 
do  deal  with  political  questions  in  Germany.  They 
support  the  Socialist  Party  of  Germany  officially. 

Mr.  Gompers:  H,  for  instance,  I  say  to  you,  sir, 
that  quite  recently  the  American  Federation  of  Labor 
asked  a  representative  of  the  German  trade  union 
movement  to  transmit  a  communication  for  Interna- 
tional Peace  to  other  countries,  and  the  officer  of  that 
organization  could  not  comply  with  the  request  with- 
out violating  the  law  and  endangering  the  existence 

73 


of  the  organization,  do  you  regard  that  as  evidence 
that  larger  liberties  have  been  attained  in  Germany 
than  in  the  United  States  ? 

Mi^.  Hillquit:  I  would  not  regard  those  instances 
as  evidences  of  political  liberty  by  any  manner  of 
means. 

Mr.  Gompers:  Would  it  not  be  an  infringement 
upon  the  liberty  of  the  German  workmen,  the  Ger- 
man citizen? 

Mr.  Hillquit:    It  would  be. 

Mr.  Gompers:  Supposing  I  tell  you  that  actually 
occurred  ? 

Mr.  Hillquit:   I  will  be  very  much  interested. 

Mr.  Gompers:   I  will  tell  you  that  it  did. 

Mr.  Hillquit:   I  thank  you. 

Mr,  Gompers:  In  Germany  there  is  considerable 
immigration  from  surrounding  countries,  particularly 
from  Italy,  and  I  think  the  Balkans,  this  last  year  or 
so.  The  police  have  encouraged  employers  to  import 
strike  breakers  into  Germany.  The  police  have  given 
them  permits  which  are  required  to  be  renewed  peri- 
odically, and  when  one  of  those  men  becomes  con- 
verted to  the  cause  of  the  workmen  on  strike,  his 
permit  is  revoked,  and  he  is  deported  to  his  country. 
Do  you  see  the  influence  that  this  must  have  upon 
the  class  struggle  among  the  workmen  in  Germany? 

Mr.  Hillquit:    Yes,  sir,  decidedly. 

Mr.  Gompers  :  Inasmuch  as  the  speaking  of  a  for- 
eign language  at  any  public  meeting  is  forbidden,  do 
you  see  the  effect  it  must  have  upon  poor  workmen 
who  have  been  brought  into  Germany  and  held  in  that 
benighted  position? 

Mr.  Hillquit:    I  see  that,  Mr.  Gompers. 

Mr.  Gompers:  You  would  not  legard  that  as  a 
very  great  liberty? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  I  would  infer  from  that  that  they 
still  have  capitalists  in  Germany,  also. 

Mr.  Gompers:    Of  course,  we  have  not  forgotten 

74 


that  fact — I  don't  suppose  we  can  be  permitted  to  fof- 
get  that  or  that  you  will  permit  us  to  forget  that  fact. 
I  do  not  want  you,  Mr.  Hillquit,  to  imagine  that  by 
my  questions  I  am  making  comparisons  that  are  in- 
viduous  to  any  other  country,  or  that  I  am  purbhnd 
to  the  wrongs  or  the  outrages  committed  here,  but  I 
would  ask  you,  as  the  authorized  representative  of  the 
Socialist  Party,  to  bear  in  mind  that  when  you  speak 
of  greater  liberty  and  better  conditions  of  the  German 
workmen  as  the  result  of  the  movement  of  Germany's 
workmen,  that  you  ought  to  have  these  facts  in  mind, 
and  I  ask  you  whether  you  have? 

Mr,.  Hillquit:  I  have  this  in  mind,  that  when  I 
spoke  of  better  conditions,  it  was  a  question  of  ma- 
terial conditions.  That  was  what  you  asked.  When 
you  go  into  the  question  of  political  institutions,  and 
political  liberty,  you  must  not  forget  that  you  deal 
with  Prussia,  which  is  a  Kingdom,  and  Germany, 
which  is  an  Empire,  and  the  United  States,  which  is 
a  Republic.  But  I  do  wish  to  reiterate  the  statement 
that  with  the  Socialist  representatives  in  the  Reichstag, 
III  of  them,  and  the  Socialist  trade  unions  in  Ger- 
many, the  unspeakable  outrages  we  have  had  here — 
and  I  do  not  have  to  mention  them  again — could  not 
have  occurred  in  Germany.    That  is  all. 

Mr.  Gompers:   Haven't  they  occurred  in  Germany? 

Mr,  Hillquit:   They  have  not. 

Mr.  Gompers:  The  right  of  meeting  is  forbidden, 
and  the  workmen  yield.  When  they  do  that  there  is 
no  conflict? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  They  have  not  killed  women  and 
children  in  labor  conflicts  in  Germany,  and  the  Gov- 
ernment of  Germany  has  not  tolerated  it.  When  an 
assault  was  committed  on  the  part  of  some  soldiers 
upon  one  crippled  workman,  the  entire  nation  was 
aroused,  and  the  Socialist  faction  in  the  Reichstag 
almost  brought  about  the  fall  of  the  ministry  on  that 
account. 

75 


\ 

Mr.  Gompers:  The  incident  to  which  you  refer  has 
an  entirely  different  apphcation,  and  the  person  in- 
volved was  a  public  official  and  not  a  workman. 

Mr.  Hillquit:   A  shoemaker,  sir. 

Mr.  Gompers  :  Isn't  this  the  fact,  that  in  the  United 
States,  the  workman  having  become  impregnated  with 
the  fundamental  principles  of  liberty,  propose  to  exert 
those  rights  and,  as  compared  to  the  willingness  of 
workmen  of  other  countries,  to  yield  rather  than  to 
assert 

Mr.  Hillquit:  It  is  not  a  fact,  because  the  work- 
men you  refer  to  have  not  had  time  to  become  im- 
pregnated with  any  so-called  fundamental  principles 
of  American  liberty.  They  were  Bohemians,  Hun- 
garians, Italians,  Austrians  and  foreigners  of  all  kinds, 
a  very  short  time  iiT  the  country.  The  attitude  of  the 
militia  they  began  resenting  when  they  began  being 
burned  alive  and  clubbed  to  death. 

Mr.  Gompers:  There  is  nothing  in  resenting  a 
wrong  and  an  outrage.  Apart  from  the  establish- 
ment of  the  Co-operative  Commonwealth  wherein 
does  the  purposes  of  your  movement  practically  dif- 
fer from  the  social  reform  movement  which  is  effect- 
ing corrections  and  improvements  in  the  present  social 
system,  and  which  aims  at  complete  social  justice,  and 
a  maximum  liberty  and  happiness  for  mankind,  such 
as  the  American  labor  movement?  The  American 
trade  union  movement,  the  American  Federation  of 
Labor  ? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Mr.  Gompers,  I  am  not  trying  to 
establish  any  differences  between  the  Socialist  move- 
ment and  the  labor  movement.  On  the  contrary,  it 
seems  to  me,  you  have  been  trying  to  establish  them, 
and  vainly.  The  Socialists  see  a  difference  in  degree 
only,  but  they  see  absolutely  no  antagonism  between 
the  activities  of  the  Socialist  movement  and  the  eco- 
nomic labor  movement.  We  claim  that  they  go  very 
well  hand  in  hand;  that  each  of  them  can  exist  and 

76 


thrive  with  the  support  of  the  other,  and  we  are  per- 
fectly willing  to  lend  our  part  of  the  support,  Mr. 
Gonipers.  Whatever  criticism  we  have  of  leaders  or 
methods  are  purely  in  the  nature  of  friendly  sugges- 
tions, and  we  are  not  here,  or  anywhere  else,  to  criti- 
cise the  organized  lahor  movement  of  this  country, 
particularly  as  against  the  public  at  large.  We  con- 
sider ourselves  as  a  part  of  the  labor  movement. 

Mr.  Gompers:  Now,  Mr.  Hillquit,  permit  me  to 
say  this — may  I,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Chairman  Walsh  :  If  it  is  any  statement  other 
than  a  question,  I  wish  you  would  defer  it  until  such 
time  as  you  take  the  witness  stand,  Mr.  Gompers. 

Mr.  Gompers:  What  is  your  opinion,  Mr.  Hillquit, 
upon  the  general  strike  for  the  subversion  of  the 
present  system? 

Mi^.  Hillquit:  I  think  it  is  Utopian.  I  do  not 
believe  it  is  a  feasible  or  realizable  proposition  at  all. 

Whenever  the  workers  of  this  country  are  ready  for 
a  general  strike  in  order  to  change  the  present  system, 
they  will  be  intelligent  enough  and  sufficiently  well 
organized  to  change  the  system  directly  by  legislative 
methods. 

Mr.  Gompers:    Legislative  methods? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  li  they  are  strong  enough  to  win 
out  by  a  general  strike,  they  will  be  strong  enough  to 
take  hold  of  the  machinery  of  government,  and  effect 
the  change  of  system  without  a  general  strike. 

Mr.  Gompers  :  What  do  you  mean  by  legislation — ■ 
the  enactment  of  law? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  The  enactment  of  a  law,  a  decree, 
an  ordinance,  or  any  other  mandate  which  can  be 
executed. 

Mr.  Gompers:  Expropriating  all  who  may  own 
property  and  turning  it  over  to  the  Government  or  the 
Co-operative   Commonwealth  ? 

Mr.  Hillquit  :  I  have  not  said,  "Expropriate."  It 
"  may  be  accomplished  by  method  of  purchase. 

77 


Mr.  Gompeks:  Well,  say— take  hold- 


Mr.  Hillquit  (Interrupting):  Take  hold  —  take 
control  and  possession  of. 

Mr.  Gompers:    Well,  by  revolution? 

Mr.  Hillquit  :  Oh,  I  suppose  it  would  probably  be 
called  a  revolution  anyhow',  but  it  may  be  a  very  peace- 
ful one,  I  don't  know. 

Mr.  Gompers:    By  confiscation? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Not  as  we  are  inclined  at  present. 
At  present  we  are  in  the  market  for  buying  out  the 
capitalists. 

Mr,.  Gompers:    By  compensation? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  By  compensation.  However,  again, 
Mr.  Gompers,  I  do  not  guarantee  the  acts  of  the  next 
generation.  The  capitalists  may  become  naughty  and 
the  people  may  be  displeased  with  them  and  take 
things,  just  as  we  took  the  negro  slaves  from  their 
owners. 

Mr.  Gompers:  You  have  an  idea  that  the  taking 
might  be  for  compensation? 

Mr.  Hillquit:   It  might  be,  yes. 

Mr.  Gompers  :  Have  yoii  an  idea  how  such  a  propo- 
sition could  be  financed? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  How  it  could  be  financed?  We 
haven't  reached  that  point  yet,  Mr,  Gompers 

Mr.  Gompers    (Interrupting):   No? 

Mr.  Hillquit  (Continuing)  :  I  suppose  that  if 
paid,  it  will  be  paid  in  some  Government  securities. 

Mr.  Gompers:  I  take  it  that  you  are  not  in  favor 
of  what  is  generally  known  as  State  Socialism? 

Mr.  Hillquit  :  I  am  not. 

Mr.  Gompers:  Not  even  as  a  step  towards  a  demo- 
cratic Socialism? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  If  it  were  State  Socialism,  it  would 
not  be  a  step  towards  democratic  Socialism. 

Mr.  Gompers:  Are  not  the  present  diflFerences 
within  the  Socialist  parties  in  the  United  States  sig- 

78 


nificant  of  fatal  differences  in  the  management  of  a 
revolutionary  society? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  No,  there  are  no  fatal  differences, 
Mr.  Gompers.  •  We  have  some  differences  of  opinion 
w^ithin  the  Socialist  Party,  sometimes  lively  ones.  I 
hope  you'  have  them  in  the  American  Federation  of 
Labor.  But  v^e,  nevertheless,  manage  to  keep  our 
organization  and  to  work  for  a  common  purpose.  I 
presume  there  will  be  strong  differences  of  opinion, 
and  some  fights,  even  under  Socialism.  I  should  not 
want  it  to  be  otherwise.  , 

Mr,  Gompers:  I  mean  as  to  liberty.  Under  So- 
cialism will  there  be  liberty  of  individual  action,  and 
liberty  in  the  choice  of  occupation  and  refusal  to  work? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Plenty  of  it,  Mr.  Gompers. 

Mr.  Gompers  :  I  take  it  that  you  have  no  apprehen- 
sion that  under  a  democratic  Socialist  management, 
the  administrators  could  or  would  attempt  to  exploit 
the  workers  under  them,  and  one  set  of  laborers  would 
exploit  another  set;  the  lazy  office-holders,  the  indus- 
trious artisans ;  the  strong  and  bolder,  the  weaker  and 
more  modest  ones,  and  the  failures,  the  economically 
successful. 

Mr.  Hillquit  :  I  think  it  quite  likely  that  there  will 
be  some  abuses  of  that  kind.  Even  under  Socialism 
men  will  still  remain  human,  no  doubt.  But,  Mr. 
Gompers,  we  have  every  reason  to  believe  that  they 
will  be  small  and  insignificant  as  compared  with  pres- 
ent abuses,  for  the  system  will  be  based  on  a  greater 
democracy  and  self-government,  and  will  thus  provide 
for  proper  means  of  remedy.  Furthermore,  there 
will  be  no  great  incentive  to  corruption  such  as  we 
have  in  private  gain  under  capitalism. 

Mr.  Gompers:  In  the  event  that  the  Co-operative 
Comonwealth  should  be  established,  taking  it  for 
granted  for  the  sake  of  the  question,  that  it  is  possible, 
it  would  have  for  its  present  purpose  the  highest  ma- 
terial and  social  and  moral  improvement  of  the  con- 

79 


dition  of  the  workers  attainable  at  that  time,  would 
it  not? 

Mr.  Hillquit:    I  think  so. 

Mr.  Gompers:  And  would  there  be- any  higher  aim 
after  that  is  established? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Oh,  there  will  be  plenty  more. 
There  will  be  new  aims  coming  every  day. 

Mr.  Gompers:    Still  more? 

Mr.  Hillquit:    Still  further. 

Mr.  Gompers:    Still  higher? 

Mr.  Hillqutt:    Still  higher. 

Mr.  Gompers:  Now,  if  that  is  so,  isn't  it  a  fact  that 
it  is  not  at  all  a  goal,  but  simply  a  transitory  ideal? 

Mr,.  Hillquit  :  Sure.  It  is  our  goal  to-day.  It  is  a 
transitory  goal.  There  will  be  a  movement  toward  a 
higher  goal  to-morrow. 

Mr.  Gompers:  In  other  words,  you  think  even  if 
that  condition  of  affairs  should  be  possible,  it,  like  the 
conditions  of  to-day,  is  transitory  and  continually  tend  • 
ing  toward  improvement  ? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Yes. 

Mr.  Gompers:  And  not  a  goal? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Not  an  ultimate  goal.  There  is  no 
such  thing  as  an  ultimate  social  goal. 

Mr.  Gomper,s:  In  the  Socialist  state,  would  you 
have  each  worker  rewarded  by  the  full  product  of  his 
labor,  or  by  an  apportionment  of  the  product  accord- 
ing to  his  demands?  In  other  words,  would  the  nile 
be,  to  each  according  to  his  deeds,  or  to  each  accord- 
ing to  his  needs? 

Mr.  Hillquit  :  I  think  neither,  strictly  speaking.  I 
don't  suppose  his  Socialist  regime  would  at  once  radi- 
cally change  established  standards  of  compensation. 
I  think  it  would  have  to  grow  up  and  be  built  up  on 
the  existing  basis.  And  I  thitik  it  will  largely  be  a 
system  of  salaries  and  wages,  as  nearly  as  possible,  in 
proportion  to  the  usefulness  of  the  service — but  they 

80 


will  be  larger  than  they  are  to-day,  because  they  will 
include  the  prolits  now  paid  to  the  idle  capitalists. 

Mr.  Gompkrs:  So,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  then,  if  the 
Co-operative  Commonwealth  is  not  a  goal,  is  not  an 
end,  then  why  term  it  Socialism,  and  why  not  term  it 
the  ordinary,  natural  development  of  the  human  race 
to  a  higher  and  better  state  of  society  ? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  We  rrray  term  it  the  ordinary  and 
natural  development  of  the  human  race  to  the  point 
of  Socialism.  In  other  words,  Mr.  Gompers,  we 
divide  the  history  of  mankind  pretty  arbitrarily  into 
certain  periods.  We  speak  of  the  period  of  Slavery, 
the  period  of  Feudalism,  the  period  of  Capitalism. 
Now  we  foresee  the  next  steo  in  development,  and 
call  it  the  period  of  Socialism.  We  cannot  draw  a 
line  of  demarcation  where  it  starts  or  where  it  van- 
ishes. It  will  certainly  not  be  permanent.  There  will 
be  something  superior  to  it  some  time.  In  the  mean- 
time every  stage  of  development  is  superior  to  the 
preceding  stage;  and  by  the  same  token  as  Capitalism 
is  superior  to  Feudalism,  Socialism  is  superior  to 
Capitalism.    That  is  all. 

Mr.  Gompers:  You  simply  apply  it  as  a  term,  and 
not  an  end? 

Mr.  Hillquit  :  Not  an  ultimate  end  in  social  de- 
velopment, no. 

Chairman  Walsh  :  Any  members  of  the  Commis- 
sion desire  to  ask  Mr.  Hillquit  any  questions? 

Commissioner  Ballard:  I  should  like  to  ask  him  a 
question  or  two. 

Chairman  Walsh:  Mr.  Ballard,  Mr.  Hillquit, 
would  like  to  ask  you  some  questions. 

Commissioner  Ballard:  You  were  speaking  of  the 
conditions  of  Socialism  and  of  the  conditions  of  the 
workers  under  it  being  different  from  the  pt;esent.  If 
we  had  an  ideal  condition  of  Socialism,  would  not 
there  be  some  of  the  people  who  would  be  workers, 
some  of  the  people  who  would  still  be  managers? 

81 


Mr.  Hillquit:  They  would  all  be  workers.  Some 
would  be  engaged  in  management  and  supervision, 
some  in  manual  Vork  and  some  in  the  mental  work. 
No  doubt  there  would  be  a  division  of  functions. 

Mr.  Ballard:  But  you  would  not  allow  any,  no 
matter  what  their  division  was,  to  acquire  or  have 
larger  advantages  than  the  lowest  worker? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  I  would -not  put  it  that  way.  We 
would  not  permit  anybody  to  enjoy  a  workless  income 
by  virtue  of  his  private  ownership  of  the  tool  which 
society  needs  for  its  wealth  production.  But  we  cer- 
tainly recognize  that  human  nature  is  diversified ;  that 
we  have  different  attitudes  and  different  abilities.  The 
work  would  be  organized  and  the  functions  divided — 

Commissioner  Ballard:  And  different  rewards? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  And  different  rewards,  no  doubt, 
would  be  allowed  for  services  of  differing  importance 
— at  least  for  some  time. 

Commissioner  Ballard:  You  spoke  this  morning 
of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  and  of  its  being 
somewhat  antiquated  in  its  methods.  Could  you,  in 
a  short  time,  tell  us  what  changes  you  would  suggest 
that  should  come  over  the  American  Federation  of 
Labor  in  order  to  make  it  more  suitable  to  the  needs 
of  the  present  time? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  I  think  those  changes  are  coming 
anyhow.  The  changes,  to  my  mind,  are  these:  The 
tendencies  towards  closer  alliance  and  amalgamation 
of  the  organizations  in  kindred  trades  and  crafts.  I 
think  the  political  attitude  of  the  American  Federa- 
tion of  Labor  also  stands  in  need  of  a  change.  The 
American  Federation  of  Labor  does  not  take  advan- 
tage of  the  great  inherent  political  powers  residing 
within  that  organization.  I  believe  that  by  throwing 
itself  on  one  chimera  after  another,  and  by  following 
the  policy  of  "punishing  friends  and  rewarding 
enemies,"  it  dissipates  a  good  deal  of  the  very  great 
power  which  the  organized  workers  of  all  other  coun- 

82 


tries  use  with  excellent  effect ;  and  I  think  the  direction 
of  further  progress  of  the  American  Federation  of 
Labor  lies  in  the  line  of  greater  solidarity  within 
the  organization,  and  in  the  political  independence  of 
the  workers. 

Commissioner  Harriman  :  I  want  to  ask  a  question 
or  two  there,  Mr,  Hillquit.  It  has  been  partially  asked 
by  Mr.  Ballard,  but  I  did  not  quite  get  the  answer. 
Isn't  it  inevitable  that  some  men,  who  have  superior 
mentality  and  driving  force,  will  always  get  ahead  of 
other  men?  And  if  that  is  so,  how  are  you  going  to 
prevent  the  capitalist  class  from  forging  to  the  front 
and  getting  into  power  ? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Mrs.  Harriman,  there  is  no  objec- 
tion to  a  person  of  superior  quality  or  merit  getting 
ahead  of  the  man  of  inferior  merit,  or  getting  larger 
reward  or  compensation.  The  Socialist  objection  is 
to  the  men  of  inferior  quality  or  intellect  getting 
ahead  of  the  brainy  man  by  reason  of  his  ownership 
o'f  the  tools,  by  reason  of  his  capital.  To-day,  any 
person  who  happens  to  be  lucky  enough  to  be  born  to 
wealth  and  who  inherits  a  good  deal  of  stocks  and 
bonds,  may  be  devoid  of  any  brains,  of  any  intellect, 
but  will  get  a  princely  income  nevertheless,  while  a 
foreman  or  other  employe  may  be  a  very  much  wiser 
man,  and  yet  get  a  mere  pittance.  That  is  the  So- 
cialist objection. 

Commissioner  Harriman  :  Then  you  do  not  object 
to  the  whole  capitalist  class — only  to  individuals  of  the 
class  who  are  wealthy  ? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  No,  we  object  to  the  capitalist  class 
as  a  class  that  derives  its  income  without  work  from 
the  ownership  of  capital.  If  any  member  of  the  capi- 
talist class  can  or  will  render  useful  services  to  so- 
ciety, he  is  entitled  to  compensation  for  such  services ; 
but  we  object  to  any  compensation  being  given  to  him 
for  his  good  fortune  of  being  born  to  wealth  and  to 

83 


his  getting  dividends,  whether  he  is  good  or  bad, 
capable,  or  incapable,  productive  or  otherwise. 

Commissioner  Lennon:  Mr.  Hillquit,  I  want  you 
to  answer  a  question  a  little  more  elaborately  than  you 
have,  or  than  I  have  understood  you.  I  understood 
you  to  say  that  the  coming  of  Socialism  must  be 
through  growth,  through  evolution,  through  the  de- 
velopment of  the  human  race  to  higher  and  better  con- 
ditions, and  that  the  workers  must  strive  to  attain 
better  conditions,  so  far  as  their  industrial  life  is  con- 
cerned, and  social  life,  and  their  mental  activity. 

Mr.  Hillquit:   Yes. 

Commissioner  Lennon:  Then  you  do  not  believe 
in  the  theory  that  you  must  grind  a  man's  nose  to  the 
extreme  before  he  will  rebel  and  help  to  bring  about 
better  conditions  ? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  By  no  manner  of  means;  just  the 
contrary. 

Commissioner  Lennon  :  Has  that  not  been  the 
theory  expressed  by  a  very  large  number  of  Socialists 
up  to  recent  times? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  It  has  not.  The  distinguishing 
feature  between  the  Socialists,  or  as  we  may  term  it 
more  accurately,  the  Social  Democrats,  and  the  Anar- 
chists, is  that  the  Anarchists  adopt  as  their  motto,  "The 
w^orse,  the  better."  Whereas,  the  Socialists'  motto  is, 
"The  better,  the  better." 

Commissioner  Ballard:  I  would  like  to  ask  you, 
if  you  please,  one  other  question.  As  I  gather,  you 
want  the  tools  to  be  owned  by  the  commonwealth. 
Would  you  allow  any  man  by  his  own  efforts,  to  ac- 
quire property,  and  allow  him  to  enjoy  the  use  of 
that  himself? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Yes. 

Commissionlr  Ballard:  Would  you  require  that 
his  children  should  start  out  the  same  as  any  other 
person's  children,  or  would  you  allow  him  to  pass 
on  to  them  the  dollars  and  cents  that  he  had  acquired  ? 

84 


Mr.  Hillquit:  In  other  words,  would  we  allow 
inheritance  under  Socialism?  Personally  I  think  we 
probably  would.  Understand,  I  have  no  warrant  to 
speak  for  the  future,  but  under  Socialism  there  would 
be  no  private  ownership  of  industries,  machinery,  or 
any  other  means  of  exploiting  a  fellow  man.  There 
would  be  private  ownership  only  in  the  means  of  con- 
sumption and  enjoyment.  And  society  at  large  is  not 
very  much  concerned  whether  you  consume  your  un- 
productive savings  in  a  year,  or  preserve  them  for  ten 
years  later,  or  pass  them  on  to  your  children.  So 
long  as  there  is  no  possibility  for  the  exploitation  of 
your  fellow  men  by  the  ownership  of  the  social  tool — 
of  the  instrument  of  labor, — so  long  I  do  not  see  any- 
thing in  the  Socialist  program  that  would  prohibit  the 
use  and  enjoyment  of  private  property  and  its  trans- 
mission to  posterity. 

Commissioner  Garret.son  :  Mr.  Hillquit,  your 
theory  is  then, — I  want  to  get  myself  straightened 

Mr.  Hillquit:    Get  it. 

Commissioner  Garretson  :  In  regard  to  this  ques- 
tion started  by  Mrs.  Harriman,  your  theory  is  that  it 
would  be  impossible,  under  the  system,  to  misuse  the 
ability  to  accumulate,  is  that  it  ? 

Mr.-  Hillquit:    Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Gompers:  In  other  words  the  incentive  would 
be  gone  for  dishonest  exploitation? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Exactly,  dishonest  exploitation  or 
exploitation  of  any  kind  would  become  impossible. 

Commissioner  Garretson:  I  was  simply  accenting 
exploitations  with  the  other  adjective. 

Chairman  Walsh  :  The  Commission  will  now 
.stand  adjourned  until  to-morrow  morning,  at  ten 
o'clock. 


85 


THIRD   SESSION. 

The  Aims  and  Methods  of  the  American 
Federation  of  Labor 

Chair,man  Walsh  :  The  Commission  will  please 
come  to  order.  All  right,  Mr.  Counsel,  we  are  ready 
to  proceed.  / 

Samuel  Gompers,  called  as  a  witness,  testified  as 
follows : 

Mr.  Thompson  :  For  the  purposes  of  the  record, 
give  us  your  name,  address  and  occupation. 

Mr.  Gompers:  Samuel  Gompers,  President  of  the 
American  Federation  of  Labor,  residing  in  the  City 
of  New  York.  The  headquarters  of  the  American 
Federation  of  Labor  are  at  Washington,  D.  C. 

Mr.  Thompson  :  How  long,  Mr.  Gompers,  have  you 
been  President  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor? 

Mr.  Gompers:  The  American  Federation  of  Labor 
was  formed  in  1881,  in  Pittsburgh,  when  I  was  elected 
its  first  president,  and  with  the  exception  of  two 
terms,  I  have  been  President  of  the  American  Federa- 
tion of  Labor  from  that  time. 

Mr.  Thompson:  Mr.  Gompers,  what  trades,  gen- 
erally speaking,  does  the  American  Federation  of 
Labor  include? 

Mr.  Gompers:  It  covers  practically  the  field  of  in- 
dustry throughout  the  country. 

Mr.  Thompson  :  And  there  are  no  limitations  as  to 
membership  in  it  on  the  part  of  any  body  of  workers' 

Mr.  Gompers  :  There  are  none.  The  only  require- 
ment, in  so  far  as  the  American  Federation  is  con- 
cerned, is  that  it  shall  be  composed  of  wage-earners. 

86 


Mr.  Thompson  :  If  you  can,  Mr.  Gompers,  I  would 
like  you  to  state  the  trades  which  are,  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  affiliated,  and  if  you  cannot,  I  would  like  to  have 
you  submit  that  at  some  time  to  the  Commission  in 
written  form. 

Mr.  Gomper.s:  I  have  it  in  print,  sir.  The  Amer- 
ican Federation  of  Labor  prints  a  directory  of  all  the 
organizations  affiliated  with  it  and  a  list  of  the  organ- 
izations which  are  not  affiliated,  but  which  are  regarded 
by  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  as  having  com- 
mon policies  and  common  polity,  even  though  unaffi- 
liated. I  shall  submit  to  you  a  copy  of  that  directory 
for  such  purposes  as  you  may  desire. 

Mr.  Thompson  :  Mr.  Gompers,  what  is  the  form  of 
the  organization  of  the  American  Federation  of 
Labor  ? 

Mr.  Gompers:  The  American  Federation  of  Labor, 
as  its  name  implies,  is  a  federation.  It  is  not,  as  it  is 
often  mistakenly  called,  an  organization,  but  a  federa- 
tion. It  is  a  federation  of  organizations,  each  of  which 
has  its  own  government  and  determines  its  own  needs 
and  requirements  in  the  light  of  the  experience  of  the 
members  of  the  organization.  This  right  in  the  be- 
ginning has  been  proclaimed  and  has  been  adhered  to 
as  consistently  as  possible  in  the  history  of  the  Amer- 
ican Federation  of  Labor,  The  Federation  has  no 
power  except  that  which  is  yielded  and  conceded  to  it 
by  the  organizations  which  make  up  the  Federation. 

Mr,.  Thompson  :  Has  the  Federation  of  Labor  got 
a  Constitution,  so-called,  or  Articles  of  Organization? 

Mr.  Gompers:  It  has. 

Mr.  Thompson  :  Have  you  those  present,  Mr. 
Gompers  ? 

Mr.  Gompers:   I  have,  sir. 

Mr.  Thompson  :  Would  you  mind  giving  a  copy 
to  the  Commission  ? 

Mr.  Gompers  :  Very  glad  to  hand  you  one  now,  sir. 
It  is  the  Constitution  as  amended  and  adopted  at  the 

87 


last  convention  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor 
at  Seattle,  November,  1913. 

1  can  now,  sir,  give  you  a  list  of  the  affiliated  organ- 
izations. There  are  1 10  national  and  international 
unions.  There  are  five  industrial  departments.  There 
are  42  State  federations  of  labor.  There  are  623  citv 
central  bodies,  or  local  city  federations  of  the  local 
trades  unions  in  the  cities  or  towns,  and  there  are  642 
local  trade  and  federated  unions,  directly  attached  to 
the  American  Federation  of  Labor  as  local  unions,  and 
whose  chartered  existence  to  the  American  Federation 
of  Labor  will  continue  until  such  time  as  there  will  be 
a  sufficient  number  in  each  particular  calling  or  trade 
so  that  a  national  union  may  be  formed  from  these 
locals,  and  set-  up  in  business  as  a  sovereign  entity  in 
the  trade  or  the  calling  or  the  industry  covered  by  these 
local  unions.  I  hand  you  here,  sir,  a  copy  of  this 
directory,  issued  on  January  the  12th,  1914,  containing 
the  names  and  addresses  of  the  executive  officers  of  the 
National  Trade  Union,  the  department,  the  State  fed- 
eration, the  central  body  or  the  local  and  federal  labor 
unions. 

Mr.  Thompson  :  Mr.  Gompers,  how  does  the  or- 
ganization of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  ex- 
press itself?  Does  it  hold  convention,  or  has  it  got 
officers  ? 

Mr.  Gompers:  It  has. 

Mr.  Thompson  :  What  conventions  does  it  hold,  and 
what  officers  has  it? 

Mr  Gompers:  The  conventions  are  held  annually, 
and  have  for  many  years  been  held  in  the  month  of 
November  of  each  year.  The  officers  consist  of  a 
President,  eight  Vice-Presidents,  a  Secretary  and  a 
Treasurer.  The  eleven  officers  constituting  the  Execu- 
tive Council. 

Mr.  Thompson  :  What  jurisdiction  and  authority 
does  the  convention  have?  Is  it  the  supreme  law- 
making body  of  the  Federation? 

-       88 


Mr.  Gompers:  It  is.  to  the  fullest  limit;  and  yet, 
within  the  limitations  of  the  authority  and  ix)vver  con- 
ceded to  the  Federation  by  the  constituent  or  federated 
sovereign  organizations.  If  I  may  be  permitted  to  use 
the  simile  we  have  formed  our  American  Federation 
of  Labor  practically  after  the  make-up  of  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  United  States,  both  in  its  Federal  jurisdic- 
tion and  .State  sovereignty,  and  in  the  system  by  which 
the  Federal  Government  exercises  only  such  powers 
as  are  conceded  to  the  United  States  by  the  States. 

Mr.  Thompson:  The  right  of  secession,  Mr,  Gom- 
pers, however,  remains  with  the  local  union,  does  it 
not? 

Mi?,.  Gompers:  With  the  affiliated  unions.  No  one 
can  question  the  legal  right  within  the  Federation  of 
an  organization  to  secede  or  withdraw.  There  is  a 
moral  obligation,  a  spirit  of  comraderie,  a  spirit  of 
patriotism,  a  spirit  of  endeavoring  to  be  of  mutual 
assistance, 

Mr.  Thompson  :  In  case  of  the  withdrawal  or 
secession  of  an  international  union  which  has  been  affi- 
liated with  the  American  Federation  of  Labor,  are  any 
coersive  methods  used  by  the  American  Federation 
of  Labor  to  cause  the  International  Union  to  withdraw 
its  secession? 

Mr.  Gompers  :  None,  sir.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the 
Western  Federation  of  Miners,  for  instance,  withdrew 
from  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  about  1896. 
There  were  many  efforts,  many '  suggestions  made,  to 
have  local  unions  belonging  to  the  Western  Federation 
of  Miners  become  part  of  the  American  Federation  of 
Labor  as  local  unions.  Not  only  was  that  discour- 
aged, but  the  proposal  was  repudiated.  And  that  is 
equally  true  with  national  organizations  which  are  not 
affiliated  with  the  American  Federation  of  Labor.  We 
feel  that  it  ought  to  be  the  duty  of  every  wage  worker 
to  belong  to  the  union  of  his  trade  or  his  calling,  and 
that  it  is  the  duty  of  a  local  union  or  a  trade  or  calling 

89 


to  belong  to  the  national  or  international  union  of  that 
trade  and  calling,  and  that  it  is  equally  the  moral  duty 
of  every  organized  body,  bona  fide  organized  body  of 
workmen,  to  belong  to  the  American  Federation  of 
Labor;  but  as  to  coersive  methods,  they  are  not  em- 
ployed. 

Mr.  Thompson  :  Where  an  international  union,  Mr. 
Gompers,  has  joined  the  American  Federation  of 
Labor,  and,  at  the  convention  resolutions  are  passed 
relating  to  the  trade  of  that  international  union,  and 
the  international  union  refuses  to  carry  out  the  order 
of  the  convention,  what  is  done  then?  What  power 
has  the  American  Federation  of  Labor? 

Mr.  Gompers:  It  has  no  powers  to  enforce  its 
judgment.  There  is  but  one  instance  that  I  recall,  in 
which  an  organization,  having  agreed  in  advance  to 
abide  by  the  decision  of  the  Executive  Council  sitting 
as  a  board  of  arbitration  in  a  dispute  between  it  and 
two  other  organizations,  refused  to  abide  when  the 
decision  was  rendered  against  it.  It  was  then  decided 
that  the  organization's  charter,  or  its  chartered  rela- 
tions with  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  would 
cease,  and  it  did  upon  a  certain  date,  but  the  organiza- 
tion, a  year  after,  re-affiliated  upon  a  declaration  in 
the  convention  to  that  effect. 

Mr.  Thompson  :  And  the  only  actual  power  outside 
of  the  moral  power  that  the  A.  F.  of  L.  has,  is  the 
power  of  expulsion  from  membership,  is  that  right? 

Mr.  Gompers:  From  membership  in  the  American 
Federation  of  Labor. 

Mr.  Thomp.son:  In  the  American  Federation  of 
Labor? 

Mr.  Gompers:  Yes,  sir.  And  I  ought  to  say,  sir, 
that  that  can  only  be  accomplished  when,  upon  roll 
call  at  the  convention  of  the  American  Federation  of 
Labor,  two-thirds  of  the  votes  are  cast  for  such  revo- 
cation of  charter  or  disassociation  of  that  organization 
from  the  Federation. 

90 


Mr.  Thompson  :  Mr.  Gompers,  you  have  spoken 
about  the  moral  force  of  the  American  Federation  of 
Labor,  and  the  alhed  organizations.  Have  you  found 
that  to  be  effective  in  the  dealings  of  the  international 
union,  one  with  another? 

Mr.  Gompers  :  The  most  effective  of  any  influence 
and  power.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  experience  of  the 
men  in  our  movement  has  shown  one  fact  standing  out 
in  bold  relief,  that  every  movement  of  workmen  which 
has  had  a  s-ystem  of  government  by  which  force  or 
compulsion  have  been  attempted  to  be  practiced,  has 
aroused  the  resentment  and  repudiation  of  the  masses 
and  has  led  to  dissolution,  while  the  efforts  to  exert 
a  moral  influence  upon  the  doings  of  men  and  of 
women  has  led  to  magnificent  results.  In  other  words 
the  workers  are  just  human  beings.  And  when  men 
are  told  that  they  must  do  something  at  the  peril  of 
their  organized  existence,  or  that  they  must  do  some- 
thing at  the  peril  of  their  personal  existence,  there  is 
a  spirit  aroused  in  them  to  say :  "I  shall  try  to  do  the 
very  contrary  to  that  you  command  me  to  do."  If  men 
are  appealed  to  their  better  judgment,  their  better 
feeling,  to  a  righteous  course  of  conduct,  they  are 
more  ready  to  yield  and  to  do  the  best  that  they  can. 

Mr  Thompson  :  Mr.  Gompers,  it  is  true  that,  un- 
der the  law  of  the  land,  no  man,  a  member  of  no  or- 
ganization, has  a  right  to  force  another  to  take  certain 
action.  Isn't  that  true?  I  say,  that  no  trade  union 
has  a  legal  right  to  force  a  member  to  go  on  a  strike, 
for  instance? 

Mr.  Gompers:    It  has  not. 

Mr,.  Thompson  :  The  sole  force,  then,  that  any 
organization  in  this  country  has,  yours  as  well  as 
others,  is  the  moral  force  to  induce  its  members  to 
take  concerted  action,  isn't  that  true? 

Mr.  Gompers  :  Yes,  sir,  it  is. 

Mr.  Thompson  :  And  that  that  rule  applies  in  every 

91 


phase  of  labor  organization,  and  particularly  in  your 
organization  ? 

Mr.  GoMPivRS:    Particularly  in  the  Federation. 

Mr.  Thompson  :  You  have  spoken,  Mr.  Gompers, 
of  the  officers  and  Executive  Council  of  the  American 
Federation  of  Labor.  You  have  told  of  its  member- 
ship.    Where  are  its  powers? 

Mr.  Gomters:  They  are  an  executive  committee, 
an  administrative  committee,  if  you  please,  for  the 
purpose  of  carrying  into  effect  the  conclusions  reached 
at  the  conventions,  and  to  take  such  initiative  in  regard 
to  any  matter,  particularly  legislation  upon  which  the 
convention  not  had  an  opportunity  to  express  itself; 
to  be  helpful  in  any  and  in  every  way  to  any  sphere 
of  human  activity,  contributing  to  the  protection,  the 
benefit,  the  welfare  of  the  people,  and  particularly  of 
wage  earners. 

Mr.  Thompson  :  Are  the  powers  of  this  council 
set  forth?  '. 

Mr.  Gompers:  Yes,  sir.  In  the  constitution,  a  copy 
of  which  I  handed  you.  sir. 

Mr.  Thompson  :  Now,  Mr.  Gompers,  in  a  general 
way,  if  you  know,  what  is  the  total  membership  of  the 
unions  affiliated  or  federated  with  the  American  Fed- 
eration of  Labor? 

Mr.  Gompers:  In  the  report  which  the  Executive 
Council  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  sub- 
mitted to  the  Seattle  convention  last  November,  was 
incorporated  the  report  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Federa- 
tion, Mr.  Frank  Morrison,  and  his  report  is  based  upon 
the  reports  made  to  his  office  by  the  affiliated  organ- 
izations, and  upon  which  these  organizations  pay  the 
per  capita  tax  for  their  respective  memberships. 

The  average  membership  for  the  year  191 3  that  Mr. 
Morrison  reported  and  upon  whom  the  per  capita  tax 
was  paid,was  1,996,004.  I  ought  to  explain  that.  Be- 
cause we  aimed  to  avoid  any  padding  of  membership 
by  any  organization  in  the  last  month  just  preceding 

92 


the  conventions,  and  thereby  increasing  the  voting 
power  of  the  delegates  of  any  organization,  in  1895 
the  convention  made  the  change  that  the  representa- 
tion and  voting  power  in  the  convention  should  not  be 
based,  as  theretofore,  upon  the  last  month's  payment, 
but  upon  the  average  payment  of  the  organization 
during  the  year, 

Mr.  Thompson:  Have  you  made  any  comparison, 
Mr.  Gompers,  between  the  growth  of  the  membership 
of  the  Federation  of  Labor  and  the  growth  of  the 
population  of  the  United  States? 

Mr.  Gompers:  T  have  made  no  accurate  compari- 
son. The  answer  to  the  question  needs  elucidation. 
The  membership  of  the  organizations  affiliated  with 
the  American  Federation  of  Labor  are  composed  of 
adults,  and  they  are  principally  men,  but  there  are  some 
women.  Therefore,  a  comparison  as  to  the  member- 
.ship  in  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  and  the 
population  of  the  United  States  is  hardly  a  fair  com- 
parison. If  you  figure  five  to  a  family,  it  is  only  fair 
to  assume  that  in  the  American  Federation  we  have 
about  eleven  million. 

Mr.  Thompson  ;  My  question  was  not  directed  to 
that  which  you  state,  but  directed  to  the  proportion  of 
the  increase — whether  the  percentage  of  increase  had 
gone  on  with  the  increase  in  population.  Now,  if  you 
don't  know,  that  is  all  right.    We  can  figure  that  out. 

Mr.  Gompers:  I  think  the  percentage  of  increase 
of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  has  been  greater 
than  that  of  the  population  of  the  L^nited  States. 

Mr.  Thompson  :  Mr.  Gompers,  now,  will  you  please 
tell  us  in  your  own  language  the  object  and  purposes 
of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor? 

Mr.  Gompers:  Recognizing  the  fact  that  associated 
effort  is  of  greater  influence  and  power  to  secure  any 
given  object  over  that  of  individual  effort,  the  first 
purpose  to  which  the  American  Federation  of  Labor 
directs  its  efforts,  is  the  encouragement  or  formation 

93 


of  trade  and  labor  unions,  and  the  closer  federation  of 
such  unions — that,  ii\  local,  state,  national  and  inter- 
national unions,  industrial  departments,  central  bodies, 
etc.,  to  encourage  these  organizations  to  aid  and  assist 
each  other  to  the  fullest  extent  in  any  of  the  struggles 
in  which  they  may  be  engaged;  to  protect  the  rights 
and  the  interests  of  the  membership  and  the  working 
people;  to  promote  and  advance  their  interests  and 
rights  economically  and  politically,  legislatively  and 
socially;  to  make  life  the  better  for  living  in  our  day, 
so  that  the  workers  may  be  in  a  better  position  to 
meet  any  problem  with  which  the  future  generations 
may  be  confronted.  In  a  word,  to  let  no  efiort  go  by 
untried  by  which  the  working  people  may  find  better- 
ment upon  every  field  of  human  activity.  There  is 
no  limit  to  any  course  which  may  be  pursued  by  our 
American  Federation  of  Labor  that  is  calculated  to 
be  of  advantage  to  the  people  of  our  country  and 
primarily  to  the  working  people.  Of  course  I  could 
enter  into  detail ;  but  the  omission  of  any  one  factor 
might  lead  to  the  inference  that  the  Federation's  ac- 
tivity was  in  so  far  limited.  It  takes  in  the  sum  total 
of  human  activity  upon  whatever  field  that  may  be, 
which  may  aid,  promote,  advance  and  protect  the  rights 
and  the  interests  of  the  working  people  and  may  tend 
to  establish  better  conditions  and  to  make  for  the 
greatest  sum  total  of  human  happiness.  At  no  part 
of  their  scheme  or  in  the  process  of  evolution,  is  there 
a  limit  placed  upon  the  work  and  the  activities  of  the 
American  Federation  of  Labor. 

Chairman  Walsh  :  Now,  Mr.  Hillquit,  you  may 
cross-examine  Mr.  Gompers. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Mr.  Gompers,  you  have  stated  that 
the  general  objects  of  the  Federation  are  to  better  the 
conditions  of  the  workers  in  all  fields  of  human  ac- 
tivity. By  that  you  mean,  I  presume,  economic  better- 
ment in  all  directions  first,  don't  you? 

Mr.  Gompers:   First.    Yes,  and  in  every  other. 
94 


Mr.  Hillquit:   Including  political  and  social? 

Mr.  Gompers:    In  every  particular. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  That  would  include,  would  it  not, 
Mr.  Gompers,  improvement  in  political  rights  and  in 
social  standing,  as  well  as  in  economic  conditions? 

Mr.  Gompers  :   Beyond  question. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Does  your  Federation  formulate 
definite  programs  of  such  improvements  from,  time 
to  tirne? 

Mr.  Gompers:  Yes,  the  American  Federation  of 
Labor  has  concerned  itself  with  first  questions  first. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  And  it  has  passed  various  resolu- 
tions recommending  concrete  ameliorative  measures, 
has  it  not? 

Mr.  Gompers:   I£  has. 

Mr,.  Hillquit:  Has  the  American  Federation  of 
Labor  expressed  itself  in  favor  of  the  shortening  of 
the  work  day  in  keeping  with  the  increased  produc- 
tiveness of  machinery? 

Mr.  Gompers:  It  has,  and  I  should  say  that  the 
movement  for  a  shorter  workday  has  been  going  on 
for  nearly  50  years — twenty  years  prior  to  the  organ- 
ization of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor.  It 
received  more  concrete  form  and  expression  since 
the  American  Federation  of  Labor  was  formed.  For 
instance,  in  1884,  the  American  Federation  of  Labor 
declared  that  a  concrete  effort  should  be  made  by  the 
working  people  of  the  United  States  to  secure  the 
eight-hour  working  day  on  May  ist,  1886.  And  the 
Federation  offered  its  services  to  the  organizations  in 
the  establishment  of  the  eight-hour  workday  by  con- 
ferences between  workmen  and  employers,  by  corre- 
spondence, by  publications,  by  agitation  and  education 
and,  if  it  is  responsive  to  the  question,  I  may  be  per- 
mitted to  say  right  here  that  upon  the  recommenda- 
tion of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor,  two  trades, 
piece-work  trades,  enforced  the  eight-hour  workday 
on    May    ist,    1886,    and   they   have   maintained   the 

95 


eight-hour  workday  in  the  industry  from  that  day 
until  this;  and  that,  as  a  result  of  the  declaration  of 
the  American  Federation  of  Labor,  the  movement  tot)k 
impetus  so  as  to  reduce  the  hours  of  labor  in  many 
trades  and  callings  from  the  i8-hour  day,  the  i6-hour 
day,  not  to  the  8-hour  day,  but  to  the  lo-  and  to  the 
9-hour  day.  Now,  I  suppose,  at  some  other  stage  of 
the  proceedings  I  may  refer  to  the  hours  of  labor 
now  generally  prevailing  in  the  industries. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  You  may.  At  any  rate,  Mr.  Gom- 
pers,  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  is  unequivo- 
cally in  favor  of  a  shorter  workday,  and  a  progres- 
sive decrease  of  working  hours  in  keeping  with  the 
development  of  machinery  and  other  productive  force?, 
is  it  not? 

Mr.  Gompers:  Yes,  and  in  addition,  the  need,  the 
recognized  need  of  our  day  is  for  greater  rest  oppor- 
tunities and  time  for  rest  and  leisure  and  cultivation. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Quite  so.  Then,  the  American 
Federation  of  Labor  is  also  in  favor  of  a  rest  of  not 
less  than  a  day  and  a  half  in  each  week? 

Mr.  Gomper.s:  Yes.  I  would  say  that  we  insist 
upon  the  one  rest  day,  an  entire  day  in  each  week.  1 
may  say  that  it  was  my  great  pleasure  to  have  been 
the  President  of  the  New  York  State  Federation  of 
Labor  when  the  Legislature  of  the  State  of  New  York, 
the  first  one  in  America,  made  Saturday  afternoon  fi 
legal  holiday. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  You  are,  then,  Mr.  Gompers,  in 
favor  of  the  rest  period  of  a  day  and  a  half,  at  least, 
in  each  week? 

Mr.  Gompers:  I  am,  sir. 

Mr,  Hillquit:  And  are  you  also  in  favor  of  secur- 
ing a  more  effective  inspection  of  workshops,  factor- 
ies, and  mines? 

Mr,  Gompers:  Mr.  Hillquit,  if  I  may,  I  should 
prefer  that  you  would  address  me,  not  as  to  my  per- 
sonal wishes  and  preferences.    I  am  here  as  President 

96 


of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor,  and  I  should, 
if  you  can,  Hke  to  have  you  address  your  questions  as 
to  what  the  attitude  of  the  American  Federation  of 
Labor  is,  rather  than  my  own. 

Mr.  Hillquit  :  Mr.  Gompers,  it  will  be  understood 
that  whenever  I  refer  to  you,  I  refer  to  you  as  the 
head  and  representative  of  the  American  Federation 
of  Labor,  and  addressing  you  in  such  capacity  I  now 
repeat  that  question :  Are  you  or  is  the  American 
Federation  of  Labor  in  favor  of  more  efficient  in- 
spection of  workshops,  factories  and  mines? 

Mr.  Gompers:  It  is,  it  has  always  been,  and  has 
worked  to  the  accomplishment  of  the  purposes  which 
you  have  just  now  read  as  being  declared. 

Mr.  Hillquit  :  And  does  the  Federation  also  favor 
forbidding  the  employment  of  children  under  sixteen 
years  of  age? 

Mr.  Gompers:  It  does,  and  it  has  worked  toward 
the  accomplishment  of  that  purpose. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Does  the  Federation  favor  forbid- 
ding the  interstate  transportation  of  the  products  of 
convict  labor,  and  the  product  of  all  uninspected  fac- 
tories and  mines? 

Mr.  Gompers:  Yes,  sir;  that  is  merely  an  instru- 
mentality. One  of  the  instrumentalities  for  the  ac- 
complishment of  the  results  mentioned  in  the  ques- 
tion you  asked  me  just  now.  It  is  not  in  itself  the 
thing;  it  is  only  an  instrumentality  to  accomplish  the 
thing. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  But  as  such  instrumentality,  the 
Federation  favors  the  measure,  does  it  not  ? 

Mr.  Gompers:    Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  And  do  you  also  favor  direct  em- 
ployment of  workers  by  the  United  States  Govern- 
ment, State  Governments,  and  Municipal  Govern- 
ments, without  the  intervention  of  contractors? 

Mr.  Gompers:  Yes,  sir;  and  to  a  large  degree  have 
accomplished  that. 

97 


Mr.  Hillquit:  Very  well,  sir.  And  does  the  Fed- 
eration also  favor  a  minimum  wage  scale? 

Mr.  Gompers:  That  question  is  general,  and  does 
not  admit  of  an  intelligent  answer. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Well,  does  the  Federation  favor 
the  fixing  by  legal  enactment  of  certain  minimum 
wages  below  which  the  employer  should  not  be  per- 
mitted to  pay? 

Mr.  Gompers:  The  American  Federation  of  Labor 
is  not  in  favor  of  such  a  proposition,  but,  on  the  con- 
trary, is  very  much  opgosed  to  it,  and  it  is  necessary 
to  say 

Mr.  Hillquit  (Interrupting)  :  Can  you  state  your 
reasons  why,  Mr.  Gompers? 

Mr.  Gompers:  The  attempts  of  Government  to 
establish  wages  at  which  workmen  may  work  is  in 
the  experience  of  history  the  beginning  of  an  era,  and 
a  long  era,  of  industrial  slavery.  There  was  a  time 
in  history  where  Governments  and  courts,  at  quarter 
sessions,  established  wages.  During  periods  where 
there  was  a  dearth  of  workmen,  and  when  employers 
oflFered  higher  wages,  the  workmen  and  employers 
were  brought  into  court  and  both  punished,  punished 
by  imprisonment  and  physical  mutilation,  because  the 
one  asked,  received  or  demanded  and  the  other  was 
willing  to  offer,  or  did  pay  higher  wages. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  May  I  interrupt  you,  Mr.  Gom- 
pers, because  I  think  you  misunderstood  me? 

Mr.  Gompers:  I  think  I  will  anticipate  what  you 
want,  with  the  next  five  or  six  words.  The  proposi- 
tion upon  which  I  am  questioned  is  as  to  minimum 
wages. 

Mr.  Hillquit:    Correct. 

Mr.  Gompers:  I  thought  I  anticipated  you.  I 
think  I  know  the  operations  of  men's  minds  a  bit,  par- 
ticularly in  the  differences  which  you  and  I  have  both 
the  honor  to  represent. 

This  is  a  proposition,  presumably,  to  determine  .a 

98 


minimum  wage.  It  is  a  maxim  in  law,  although  I  am 
not  a  lawyer,  that  once  a  court  has  jurisdiction  over 
an  individual,  it  has  the  power  to  exercise  full  au- 
thority in  the  field  of  that  jurisdiction.  I  fear  the 
Greeks  even  when  they  bear  gifts.  Any  attempt  to 
entrap  the  American  workmen  into  a  species  of  slavery 
under  the  guise  of  an  offer  of  this  character  is  re- 
sented by  the  men  and  women  of  labor  in  the  Amer- 
ican Federation  of  Labor. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  In  other  words,  Mr.  Gompers,  if 
a  law  were  proposed  in  the  State  of  New  York  to  the 
effect  that  no  women  be  employed  in  factory  indus- 
tries at  a  wage  less  than,  say,  nine  or  ten  dollars  a 
week,  you  would  object  to  such  a  measure  on  the 
ground  that  it  might  tend  to  enslave  the  women 
workers  of  the  State  of  New  York.  Is  that  your 
proposition  ? 

Mr.  Gompers  :  Let  me  say  this,  that  cannot  be  an- 
swered in  a  categorical  anwser  Yes  or  No. 

Mr.  Hillquit  :   Answer  it  in  your  own  way. 

Mr.  Gompers:  When  that  question  was  up  for  in- 
vestigation and  discussion  before  the  Executive  Coun- 
cil, and  subsequently  before  the  American  Federation 
of  Labor,  there  was  quite  a  diversion  of  views.  I  am 
betraying  no  confidence  when  I  say  that.  The  con- 
vention decided  that  the  subject  was  worthy  of  fur- 
ther study  and  consideration,  and  that  is  the  official 
action  of  the  convention  of  the  American  Federation 
of  Labor. 

If  you  desire  to  have  my  personal  views  upon  that. 
I  shall  be  perfectly  willing  to  express  them. 

Mr.  Hillquit  :  You  may  voice  your  own  views  or 
the  views  of  the  Federation,  as  you  please.  All  I  want 
is  a  clear  answer.  My  last  question  was:  Assuming 
that  a  law  was  proposed  in  this  State,  fixing  a  mini- 
mum wage  rate  for  women  employed  in  factories  at, 
say,  nine  dollars  or  ten  dollars  a  week,  would  you  in- 

99 


dividually  or  as  the  representative  of  the  American 
Federation  of  Labor,  oppose  such  a  law  ? 

Mr.  Gompers:  I  would  not  be  authorized  nor  war- 
ranted in  opposing  it  since  the  American  Federation 
of  Labor  has  characterized  the  question  of  a  minimum 
wage  as  a  subject  worthy  of  further  study  and  inves- 
tigation. Personally,  of  course,  I  would  prefer  in 
general,  not  to  do  that,  but  in  this  I  shall  be  very  glad 
to  volunteer  my  opinion, 

Mr.  Hillquit:    Go  ahead,  Mr.  Gompers. 

Mr,.  Gompers:  I  say  that  in  my  judgment  the  pro- 
posal, though  well-meaning,  is  a  curb  upon  the  natural 
rights  and  the  opportunity  for  development  of  the 
women  of  our  country  and  of  the  industry. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Then  your  idea  is,  Mr.  Gompers, 
if  the  Legislature  once  fixed  a  minimum  wage,  the 
machinery  of  the  State  would  be  set  in  motion  to  en- 
force work  at  that  rate,  whether  the  worker  desired 
to  render  the  service  or  not? 

Mr.  Gompers:  I  am  very  suspicious  of  the  activi- 
ties of  governmental  agencies. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  And  your  apprehensions  are,  then, 
in  that  direction,  that  once  the  State  is  allowed  to  fix 
a  minimum  rate,  the  State  would  also  take  the  right 
to  compel  women  or  men  to  work  at  that  rate,  is 
that  it? 

Mr.  Gompers:  That  is  my  apprehension. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Mr.  Gompers,  you  are  in  favor  of 
a  maximum  workday  established  by  law,  are  you  not? 

Mr.  Gompers:    I  am. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Wouldn't  you,  by  analogy,  say  that 
there  is  an  equally  justifiable  apprehension  that  if 
the  Legislature  once  is  allowed  to  establish  a  maxi- 
mum workday  it  might,  by  putting  its  machinery  in 
motion,  compel  workmen  to  work  up  to  the  maximum 
allowed  ? 

Mr.  Gompers:  I  think  that  my  answer  has  not 
been  sufficiently  intelligent  or  comprehensive  when  I 

100 


answer  by  the  two  monosyllables,  "I  am."  I  ought  to 
say  I  am  in  favor  of  legal  enactments  for  the  maxi- 
mum hours  of  labor  for  all  workmen  in  direct  Govern- 
ment employment,  and  for  those  who  do  work  that 
the  Government  has  substituted  for  Governmental 
authority.  I  am  in  favor — and  the  Federation  is  in 
favor  of  a  maximum  number  of  hours  for  children, 
for  minors,  and  for  women. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Then  do  I  understand  you  to  say, 
Mr.  Gompers,  that  the  Federation  does  not  favor  a 
legal  limitation  of  the  workday  for  adult  men  workers  ? 

Mr.  Gompers  :  Not  by  law  of  the  State.  As  a  mat- 
ter of  fact,  the  unions  have. established  very  largely 
the  shorter  workday  by  their  own  initiative,  power 
and  influence;  they  have  done  it  for  themselves. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  I  know  that,  Mr.  Gompers,  but  is 
the  Federation  opposed  to  similar  legal  enactments? 

Mr.  Gompers:    For  adult  workmen? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Exactly,  limiting  their  hours  of 
work? 

Mr.  Gompers:    By  legal  statutory  authority? 

Mr.  Hillquit:   Yes. 

Mr.  Gompers  :  It  is. 

Mr.  Hillquit:    It  is  opposed? 

Mr.  Gompers:    Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Has  it,  in  any  of  its  conventions, 
or  otherwise  officially,  declared  itself  as  opposed  io 
such  legal  enactment? 

Mr.  Gompers:  Such  propositions  have  been  up  at 
several  times  and  they  have  been  negativecj. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  From  all  of  that,  you  infer  thai 
the  Federation  is  opposed  to  such  legal  enactments? 

Mr.  Gompers:  I  do  not  think  it  is  a  question  of 
inference.  It  is  a  question  of  fact.  When  a  propo- 
sition is  made  and  it  is  defeated,  that  shows  that  the 
body  is  opposed  to  it.  It  may  be  that  the  question 
was  set  aside  because  the  Federation  did  not  desire 

101 


to  commit  itself,  but  the  grounds  upon  which  such 
rejection  has  occurred  were  as  I  have  stated. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Then,  Mr.  Gompers,  will  you  tell 
me  what  line  you  draw  between  child  labor,  woman 
labor,  and  adult  male  labor  in  hazardous  industries? 

Mr.  Gompers:  For  instance,  I  favor  of  the  meth- 
ods by  which  the  United  Mine  Workers  of  America 
have  established  the  eight-hour  day  in  the  bituminous 
coal  field  by  their  own  action  rather  than  I  would  be 
for  the  enactment  of  a  law. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  One  does  not  exclude  the  other, 
does  it,  Mr.  Gompers? 

Mr.  Gompers:  Except  as  I  have  stated,  that  the 
American  Federation  of  Labor  has  some  apprehen- 
sions as  to  the  placing  of  additional  powers  in  the 
hands  of  the  Government  which  may  work  to  the  detri- 
ment of  working  people,  and  particularly  when  the 
things  can  be  done  by  the  workmen  themselves. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Then,  Mr.  Gompers,  as  I  under- 
stand you,  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  is  in 
favor  of  a  uniform  shorter  workday  and  would  en- 
force it  by  means,  say,  of  collective  bargaining,  or 
other  methods  employed  by  labor  unions? 

Mr.  Gompers:  I  may  say,  Mr.  Hillquit,  that  you 
have  evidently  a  misapprehension  of  the  functions  of 
the  American  Federation  of  Labor.  As  a  matter  of 
fact,  the  unions  themselves  undertake  the  work  of 
accomplishing  the  shorter  workday.  For  instance, 
the  International  Typographical  Union  undertook  a 
movement  giving  employers  more  than  a  year's  notice 
in  advance  that  from,  a  certain  day  on  they  would 
work  no  more  than  eight  hours  in  each  day.  Almost 
immediately  a  large  number  of  employers  acceded. 
Others  refused.  The  men  struck.  Covering  a  period 
of  more  than  a  year,  a  number  of  organized  employers 
and  individual  firms  came  to  an  agreement  acceding 
to  the  8-hour  day,  and  enforcing  it,  and  finally  the 
eight-hour  day  has  been  established,  not  only  for  the 

102 


printers,  the  International  Typographical  Union,  tut 
the  8-hour  day  prevails  now  generally  in  the  printing 
trades ;  and  that  is  true  in  many  other  trades.  It  did 
not  require  any  law  for  the  printers;  it  did  not  re- 
quire any  law  for  the  granite  cutters ;  it  did  not  re- 
quire any  law  for  the  Cigar  Makers'  International 
Union,  of  which  I  have  the  honor  to  be  a  member. 
There  was  not  any  requirement  in  the  law  in  the 
building  trades,  and  many  others,  to  introduce  the 
eight-hour  workday. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  I  fully  understand  that,  but  you 
have  stated  before  that  thre  American  Federation  of 
Labor,  as  such,  at  its  annual  conventions,  adopted  a 
resolution  as  early  as  1884,  approving  the  movement 
for  an  eight-hour  day,  and  that  it  has  since  co-oper- 
ated with  the  various  affiliated  organizations  for  the 
attainment  of  the  eight-hour  day. 

Mr.  Gompers  :  Yes,  but  it  was  necessary  for  the 
organizations  themselves  to  take  the  initiative. 

Mr.  Hillquit:    Granted. 

Mr.  Gompers  :  For  instance,  I  think  it  was  in  1890, 
or  in  1889,  when  the  American  Federation  of  Labor 
again  took  up  the  movement  to  encourage  the  inau- 
guration of  a  shorter  workday — the  eight-hour  work- 
day; and  the  Executive  Council  was  given  authority 
by  the  convention  to  extend  all  the  help  it  could  to 
any  organization  making  application  to  be  selected 
to  make  the  movement.  The  carpenters  were  among 
the  organizations  then  making  application,  and  they 
were  selected  by  the  Executive  Council  to  make  the 
fight. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Now,  Mr.  Gompers,  to  save  fur- 
ther misunderstanding  and  explanation,  I  will  say  to 
you  that  whenever  I  mention  the  American  Federa- 
tion of  Labor,  I  mean  not  only  the  Executive  Council, 
but  mean  also  the  unions  affiliated  with  and  constitut- 
ing that  body.    Now,  Mr.  Gompers 

Mr.  Gompers  (Interrupting)  :   Mr.  Hillquit,  pardon 

103 


me  again.  In  any  question  and  answer  appearing 
without  that  distinction  being  made,  the  student  of 
history  now  and  hereafter  is  not  likely  to  go  back  to 
your  qualification  and  find  the  interpretation  of  the 
question  upon  that  basis;  and  for  that  reason  I  must 
insist  that  each  time  you  refer  to  the  specific  thing, 
rather  than  to  the  general. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Very  well,  Mr.  Gompers.  As  you 
know,  Mr.  Gompers,  the  United  Mine  Workers,  and 
the  Western  Federation  of  Miners,  both  affiliated 
with  the  American  Federation  of  Labor,  have  been 
very  active  in  establishing  in  the  several  states  of  their 
of>erations,  a  minimum  workday  of  eight-hours.  Is 
not  that  a  fact  ? 

Mr.  Gom  pers  :  In  the  Western  states,  for  workmen 
who  are  employed  beneath  the  surface  of  the  earth. 

Mr.  Hillquit  :  Now,  is  the  Federation,  as  a  whole, 
in  favor  of  such  legislation  as  the  Western  Miners 
have  obtained,  say,  in  Colorado  ? 

Mr,.  Gompers:  The  organized  labor  movement  of 
Colorado  and  of  Utah  have  accomplished  that,  sir 
But  the  American  Federation  of  Labor,  as  such,  has 
not  taken  any  action  upon  that  subject. 

Mr.  Hillquit  :  From  your  knowledge  of  the  senti- 
ment and  position  of  the  American  Federation  of 
Labor  as  such,  would  you  say  that  the  Federation 
approves  or  disapproves  of  the  efforts  of  its  aflfiliated 
unions  to  obtain  a  legally  established  maximum  work- 
day? 

Mr.  Gompers:  I  think  that  the  Federation,  if  called 
upon  to  approve  the  course,  would  say  that  the  or- 
ganization acted  within  its  rights,  and  if  it  deemed 
it  for  the  best.  We  would  not  oppose  it,  but  rather 
approve  it. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Notwithstanding  the  apprehension.* 
you  express? 

Mr.  Gompers:   The  fact  of  the  matter  is  that  some 

104 


men  unconsciously  and  with  the  best  of  intentions  get 
to  rivet  chains  on  their  wrists. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Now,  Mr.  Gompers,  the  Federa- 
tion would  encourage  the  practice  of  its  various  affi- 
liated organizations  in  endeavoring  to  secure  a  shortei 
workday  by  means  of  a  collective  agreement  with 
certain  groups  of  employers  in  a  certain  industry, 
would  it  not? 

Mr.  Gompers:   It  would. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  And  the  ideal  state  would  be  to 
have  each  of  your  affiliated  organizations  secure  such 
shorter  workday  by  such  means,  would  it  not? 

Mr.  Gompers:  No,  sir.  I  nave  a  very  different 
conception  from  what  you  have,  as  is  quite  evident, 
as  to  ideals.    It  is  desirable,  but  it  is  not  ideal. 

Mr.  Hillquit:   Yes;  but  it  would  be  desirable, 

Mr.  Gompers:   Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Now,  if  the  same  proposition 
should  come  by  means  of  a  law  forcing  an  8-hour 
workday  upon  all  employers  in  a  given  state,  or,  for 
that  matter,  throughout  the  Union,  then  the  Federa- 
tion, as  I  understand,  would  not  approve  it. 

Mr.  Gompers:    It  would  oppose  iL. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  It  would  oppose  it? 

Mr.  Gompers:  If  I  understand  and  correctly  in- 
terpret the  views  of  the  American  Federation  of 
Labor,  it  would  oppose  it. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Now,  let's  understand  that  well, 
Mr.  Gompers,  for  the  record.  Your  opinion  is  that 
if  there  were  a  movement  and  a  possibility  of  estab- 
lishing a  shorter  workday,  say  an  eight-hour  workday 
— by  legal  enactment  throughout  the  land,  and  a  mini- 
mum wage  in  the  same  way,  the  Federation  would  be 
opposed  to  such  measures  ? 

Mr.  Gompers:  It  would,  because  it  has  in  a  large 
measure  accomplished  it  and  will  accomplish  it  by  the 
initiative  of  the  organization  and  the  grit,  the  courage, 

105 


the  manhood  and  womanhood  of  the  men  and  women 
in  the  American  Federation  of  Labor. 

Mr.  Hillquit  :  And  if  that  grit  and  courage  should 
express  itself  by  forcing  the  legislatures  of  the  various 
states  to  enact  such  a  law,  and  if  the  execution  of  the 
law  were  backed  by  a  strong  labor  organization  in  each 
state,  with  the  same  grit  and  courage,  you  would  still 
object  to  it? 

Mr.  Gompers:  Well,  your  hypothesis  is  entirely 
groundless. 

Mr.  Hillquit:   Why,  Mr.  Gompers? 

Mr.  Gompers:  When  the  organizations  of  labor, 
as  I  have  already  said,  have  accomplished  that  to  a 
large  extent,  and  propose  to  accomplish  it  further  on 
their  own  initiative  and  by  their  own  voluntary  asso- 
ciation, it  precludes  the  question  of  having  a  legal 
enactment  for  that  purpose. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  I  just  wanted  to  know  why  it  pre- 
cludes it.  You  say  that  many  of  the  unions  affiliated 
with  you  propose  to  secure  a  shorter  workday;  that 
means  they  have  not  done  so  yet. 

Mr.  Gompers:   Unfortunately  that  is  so. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Yes,  unfortunately  that  is  so. 
Now,  Mr.  Gompers,  my  question  is  this :  Assume  that 
the  workers  had  a  chance  to  accomplish  this  end  by 
methods  of  legal  enactment  brought  about  through 
their  influence  and  surrounded  by  precautions  satis- 
factory to  the  labor  organizations,  then  I  want  you 
to  say  whether  or  not  the  American  Federation  of 
Labor  would  be  opposed  to  such  measure. 

Mr.  Gompers:  It  would,  for  the  reasons  I  have 
already  stated,  and  for  the  additional  reason  that  the 
giving  of  the  jurisdiction  to  government  and  to  gov- 
ernmental agencies,  is  always  dangerous  to  the  work- 
ing people. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  I  understand  you  rightly.  Now, 
Mr.  Gompers,  does  the  American  Federation  of  Labor 

106 


favor  a  system  of  non-contributing  old-age  pensions 
for  workers? 

Mr.  Gompers:    Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Hillquit  :  And  that,  of  course,  by  legal  enact- 
ment and  governmental  machinery  ? 

Mr.  Gomper^  :    Yes. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  And  does  the  Federation  likewise 
favor  a  general  system  of  state  insurance  against  un- 
employment, sickness,  disability,  and  industrial  ac- 
cident ? 

Mr.  Gompers:  There  is  some  doubt  as  to  some  of 
the  propositions. 

Mr.  Hillquit:    Which  ones? 

Mr.  Gompers:  Particularly  state  insurance  against 
unemployment. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Is  there  anv  doubt  about  state  in- 
surance against  sickness  or  accidents? 

Mr.  Gompers:    I  think  not. 

Mr.  Hillquit:    There  is  not? 

Mr.  Gompers:    I  am  sure  not. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  In  other  words,  the  Federation 
supports  such  measures? 

Mr.  Gompers:    Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Hillquit:   As  measures  .of  legal  enactment? 

Mr,  Gompers:    Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  What  does  the  Federation  propose 
to  do  with  the  problem  of  unemployment? 

Mr.  Gompers:  To  shorten  the  workday  of  the  em- 
ployed ;  to  share  with  the  unemployed  workmen  the 
work  that  is  to  be  performed;  to  constantly  work  to- 
wards the  elimination  of  unemployment  afid  through 
the  refusal  of  the  American  workman  to  regard  un- 
employment as  a  permanent  status  in  the  industrial 
and  economic  forces  of  our  country. 

Mr^  Hillquit:  Just  what  do  you  mean,  Mr.  Gom- 
pers, by  refusal  of  the  workman  to  regard  it  as  an 
institution  in  our  industrial  system  ? 

Mr.  Gompers  :    To  constantly  make  for  a  reduc- 

107 


tion  in  the  hours  of  labor — to  share  the  work  with 
those  who  are  unemployed,  and  thereby  find  work — 
help  to  find  work  for  the  unemployed,  and  to  en- 
courage and  stimulate  the  workmen  in  their  effort  for 
a  constantly  increasing  share  in  the  production  of 
wealth — the  consumption  and  use  of  things  produced 
— and  thereby  giving  employment  to  unemployed. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Then,  Mr.  Gompers,  your  only 
remedy  is  practically  the  shortening  of  the  workday 
and  the  increased  power  of  consumption  on  the  part 
of  the  workers  that  would  follow  as  a  consequence, 
is  it  not? 

Mr.  Gompers:  You  are  employing  the  word 
"only,"  which  is  scarcely  a  proper  characterization  of 
my  answer. 

Mr.  Hillquit:   Then  what  else? 

Mr.  Gompers:   I  have  already  enumerated. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Well,  then  whatever  you  have  enu- 
merated constitutes  the  entire  program  of  the  Amer- 
ican Federation  of  Labor  with  reference  to  the  un- 
employed ? 

Mr.  Gompers:   No. 

Mr.  Hillquit:   What  else  did  you  wish  to  add? 

Mr.  Gompers:  Just  as  I  mentioned  a  short  while 
ago,  when  one  begins  to  particularize,  anything  un- 
mentioned  may  seem  a  limitation.  But  the  sum  total 
of  the  activities  of  the  organized  workers  to  meet 
the  problem  of  unemployment  is  not  encompassed  in 
what  I  have  already  said.  We  favor  the  undertaking 
of  great  public  works.  Again,  I  am  particularizing, 
without  wishing  to  limit.  If  you  should  ask  me 
whether  I  favor  this  or  the  other  proposition  to  meet 
and  solve  the  problem  of  the  unemployed,  it  would 
enable  you  to  question  me  on  my  answer,  limiting  or 
extending,  just  as  the  case  may  be.  But  I  don't  be- 
lieve that  I  should  be  placed  in  the  position  of  having 
my  entire  curriculum  on  the  subject  limited  and  short- 
ened by  a  statement  made  on  the  spur  of  the  moment. 

108 


Mr.  Hillquit:  Now,  Mr.  Gompers,  the  methods 
you  mentioned  would  naturally  involve  a  rather  slow 
process,  wouldn't  they,  a  question  of  several  years, 
anyhow  ? 

Mr.  Gompers:  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  existence 
of  the  organized  labor  movement  in  1907,  as  well  as 
the  existence  of  the  organized  labor  movement  to-day, 
has  been  and  is  the  most  potent  force  in  our  country 
to  prevent  conditions  that  would  act  to  the  great, 
detriment  of  the  working  people  of  our  country.  In 
1907,  when  the  financial  panic  came  upon  the  work- 
ing people,  the  expressed  determination  of  the  Amer- 
ican labor  movement  to  prevent,  to  resist  at  all 
hazards  any  attempt  to  reduce  wages  was  a  clarion 
call  to  the  workers,  and  a  warning  to  the  employers 
that  they  must  not  apply  in  our  time  the  old  method 
of  visiting  on  the  workers  the  defects  or  the  faults 
of  their  own  planning  or  misplanning. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  I  fully  appreciate  it,  Mr.  Gompers, 
and  fully  accept  it.  But,  does  your  Federation  have 
any  program  in  the  face  of  the  present  momentary 
condition  of  unemployment any  program  of  im- 
mediate, even  though  partial,  alleviation  of  that 
condition  ? 

Mr.  Gompers  :  The  American  Federation  of  Labor 
and  the  bona  fide  organized  labor  movement,  have 
less  to  do  with  setting  forth  programs  than  with 
actual  work.  It  is  the  easiest  thing  in  the  world  for 
people  to  promulgate  programs  which  mean  simple, 
idle,  elusive  words,  and  nothing  substantial  to  the 
working  people. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Does  not  any  plan  of  action,  Mr. 
Gompers,  a  plan  of  systematic,  thought-out  action, 
constitute  a  program? 

Mr.  Gompers:  If,  Mr.  Hillquit,  you  want  me  to 
say  that  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  is  not  :i 
perfect  Federation,  or  that  our  organizations  are  not 
perfect — if  you  want  me  to  say  that  these  organiza- 

109 


tions  and  our  Federation  has  not  promulgated  a  theory 
or  a  program  for  the  elimination  of  every  human  ill, 
I  will  admit  it. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Now,  Mr.  Gompers,  that  was  very 
far  from  my  thoughts.  I  wanted  to  get  at  facts.  I 
wanted  to  know  how  the  Federation  stands  in  the  face 
of  this  acute  problem  in  the  labor  conditions.  Does 
the  Federation  favor  Government  relief  of  unem- 
ployed by  extension  of  useful  public  works  ? 

Mr.  Gomper:    Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Hillquit  :  And  does  it  also  favor  a  provision 
to  the  effect  that  all  persons  employed  on  such  work 
shall  be  engaged  directly  by  the  Government  and  work 
not  more  than  eight  hours,  and  at  not  less  than  the 
prevailing  union  wages? 

Mr.  Gompers:   Yes. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Does  the  Federation  favor  a  plan 
by  which  the  Government  should  establish  employ- 
ment bureaus  and  loan  money  to  States  and  munici- 
palities without  interest  for  the  purposes  of  carrying 
on  useful  public  works? 

Mr.  Gompers  :  It  has  not  declared  itself  upon  that 
subject,  except  as  I  have  already  stated  in  the  blanket 
answer;  that  is,  it  favors  any  tangible,  rational  propo- 
sition that  would  help  to  meet  and  solve  the  question 
of  unemployment. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Then  you,  individually,  Mr.  Gom- 
pers, would  not  object  to  such  a  plan? 

Mr.  Gompers:  Oh,  no,  I  think  not. 

Mr.  Hillquit  :  Now,  Mr.  Gompers,  you  also  men- 
tioned that  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  tried 
to  improve  the  political  status  of  the  workers;  that  is 
correct,  is  it  not? 

Mr.  Gompers:  I  should  like  to  be  quoted  accur- 
ately :  To  improve  the  condition  of  the  working  people 
in  every  human  field  of  activity;  to  protect,  promote 
and  advance  their  rights  and  interests. 

110 


Mr.  Hillqutt:  Exactly.  Now,  "every  field  of 
human  activity"  includes  the  political  field? 

Mr.  Gompers:  It  does. 

Mr.  Hillquit  :  And  every  right  of  the  worker  in- 
cludes his  political  rights? 

Mr.  Gompers:  It  does. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Now,  then,  Mr.  Gompers,  is  your 
Federation  in  favor  of  the  absolute  freedom  of  press, 
speech  and  assemblage? 

Mr.  Gompers:   It  is.    May  I  amplify  that  answer? 

Mr.  Hillquit:   You  may. 

Mr.  Gompers:  I  wish  to  say  that  the  American 
Federation  of  Labor  has,  in  the  effort  to  stand  for 
the  freedom  of  speech,  freedom  of  the  press,  and 
freedom  of  assemblage,  undertaken  great  risks,  and 
has  asserted  it  and  maintained  it.  In  addition  to  this, 
the  American  Federation  of  Labor  looks  askance  upon 
any  effort  to  curb  the  inherent,  as  well  as  the  constitu- 
tional rights  of  free  press  and  free  speech  and  free 
assemblage,  and  holds  that,  though  these  rights  may 
be  perverted,  may  be  improperly  exercised,  exercised 
for  an  unlawful  purpose,  yet  these  rights  must  not, 
in  advance,  be  interfered  with.  The  right  of  assem- 
blage, the  right  of  expression  through  speech  or  press, 
must  be  untrammeled  if  we  are  going  to  have  a  Re- 
publican form  of  government.  If  anybody  utters  that 
which  is  libellous  or  seditious  or  treasonable,  they 
must  be  made  and  may  be  made  to  answer  for  those 
transgressions,  but  the  right  of  expression  must  be 
unimpaired,  and  the  American  Federation  of  Labor 
has  stood  and  will  stand  unalterably  and  unequivocally 
in  favor  of  free  assemblage,  free  speech  and  free 
press. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  So  will  the  Socialist  Party.  We 
are  one  there. 

Mr.  Gompers  :  I  did  not  know  that  the  Socialist 
Party  was  to  be  injected  into  this. 

Ill 


Mr.  Hillquit:  Why,  we  have  had  the  two  inter- 
jected all  along. 

Chairman  Walsh  :  If  you  will  leave  out  the  com- 
ment or  the  assertion 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Very  well.  Mr.  Gompers,  is  your 
Federation  in  favor  of  unrestricted  and  equal  suffrage 
for  men  and  women  ? 

Mr.  Gompers:  It  is,  it  has  been,  and  has  done 
much  to  advance  that  cause. 

Mr.  Hillquit  :  Does  your  Federation  favor  the 
initiation,  referendum  and  recall? 

Mr.  Gompers:  It  not  only  advocates  it  and  has 
advocated  it,  but  one  of  the  members  of  an  affiliated 
organization  was  the  author  of  the  first  book  upon 
direct  legislature,  initiative  and  referendum  in  the 
United  States — Mr.  James  W.  Sullivan. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Mr.  Gompers,  does  your  Federa- 
tion also  favor  the  system  of  proportional  represen- 
tation ? 

Mr,  Gompers  :  It  has  not,  as  an  organization,  taken 
affirmative  action  on  that  subject. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  But  it  practices  it  in  its  own  con- 
ventions?    Your  vote  is  based  on  membership? 

Mr.  Gompers:  Proportional  representation,  as  that 
term  is  usually  applied,  is  not  the  proportional  rep- 
resentation to  which  you  refer  in  the  voting  in  the 
conventions  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor. 
The  proportional  representation — that  is,  I  want  to 
know  whether  I  am  right? 

Mr.  Hillquit:   I  will  define  it,  Mr.  Gompers. 

Mr.  Gompers:    Yes. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  I  use  the  term  "proportional  rep- 
resentation" as  denoting  a  system  by  which  votes  are 
cast  and  rights  are  exercised  by  representatives  in  pro- 
portion to  the  numerical  strength  of  the  constituents? 

Mr.  Gompers:    Yes,  I  favor  that. 

Mr.  Hillquit:    You  do? 

112 


Mr.  GoMPERS:  Yes,  sir.  The  American  Federation 
of  Labor  does. 

Mr.  Hillquit  :  Does  the  Federation  favor  the  elec- 
tion of  the  president  and  vice-president  of  the  United 
States  by  direct  vote  of  the  people  without  interven- 
tion of  the  electoral  college? 

Mr.  Gompers:   It  does,  and  has  so  declared. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Does  your  Federation  favor  a  re- 
striction upon  the  powers  of  judges  to  nullify  laws  cr 
to  set  them  aside  as  unconstitutional  ? 

Mr.  Gompers:    It  does. 

Mr,.  Hillquit  :  Does  your  Federation  favor  a 
measure  to  make  the  constitution  of  the  United  States 
amendable  by  a  majority  vote  of  the  people? 

Mr.  Gompers:  Amendable  by  an  easier  method 
than  at  present  prevails.  As  to  the  specific  proposi- 
tion that  you  have  just  asked,  I  am  not  so  sure.  I 
don't  know.  No  expression  has  been  made  on  the 
subject. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Personally,  Mr.  Gompers,  you 
would  think  a  simpler  method  of  amending  the  con- 
stitution would  be  a  step  in  advance? 

Mr.  Gompers:  The  present  method  is  very  cum- 
bersome and  slow,  and,  being  a  written  constitution, 
while  it  ought  not  to  be  subject- to  changes  at  every 
ebb  and  flow  of  the  tide,  changes  ought  to  be  much 
easier  than  now. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Now,  Mr.  Gompers,  are  you  in 
favor  of  curbing  the  powers  of  the  court  to  punish 
for  contempt  in  labor  disputes,  or  to  regulate  that 
power? 

Mr.  Gompers:  If  I  may  adopt  the  tactics  of  the 
Yankee,  I  might  say,  "Do  you  doubt  it?" — Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Are  you  in  favor  of  the  enactment 
of  further  measures  for  general  education,  and  par- 
ticularly for  vocational  education  in  useful  pursuits? 

Mr.  Gompers:  Yes.  Here  is  a  fact  not  generally 
known :    That  to  the  organized  labor  movement  of 

113 


Massachusetts  belongs  the  credit  of  having  established 
the  public  schools  of  Massachusetts.  Prior  to  that 
time  there  were  schools  which  the  children  of  indigent 
parents  could  attend,  but  the  child  that  did  attend  car- 
ried with  it  the  stigma  of  the  poverty  of  its  parents, 
and  it  was  a  stigma  then.  The  labor  movement  of 
Mas.sachusetts  secured  the  enactment  of  a  law  remov- 
ing the  requirement  by  which  the  parents  had  to  de- 
clare that  they  were  indigent  and  could  not  afford  to 
pay  for  the  tuition  of  their  children.  Thus  came  into 
vogue  the  first  public  school  system  in  the  world. 

Mr.  Hillquit  :  So  that  the  Federation  is  committed 
to  and  favors  an  extension  of  the  educational  system, 
and  the  vocational  training? 

Mr.  Gompers:  In  all  of  its  highest  and  best  phase?. 
And  say  that  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  has 
had  a  Committee  for  the  past  ten  years,  a  Committee 
composed  of  many  of  its  own  representative  men  and 
women  and  a  number  of  public  educators  acting  for 
the  American  Federation  of  Labor,  yet  independent 
of  it,  that  has  worked  out  a  system  of  vocational  train- 
ing in  industrial  and  agricultural  vocational  training, 
household  economy  and  civic  duty,  so  much  so  that 
the  report  of  that  committee  was  made  a  public  docu- 
ment by  the  Senate  of  the  United  States. 

Mr.  Hillquit  :  Is  your  Federation  in  favor  of  the 
free  administration  of  justice? 

Mr.  Gompers:   It  is. 

Mr.  Hillquit  :  I  have  enumerated  to  you  all  politi- 
cal and  industrial  demands  in  the  platform  of  the 
Socialist  Party,  and  find  that  your  Federation  adopts 
them  with  the  exception  of  two  points  of  difference 
on  the  question  of  a  maximum  workday  and  the  mini- 
mum wage.  You  would  accomplish  that  by  pure  eco- 
nomic action ;  the  Socialist  Party  advocates  it  through 
legal  enactment,  is  that  correct? 

Mr.  Gompers:   It  is  not  correct. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Why? 

114 


Mr.  Gompers:  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  Socialist 
Party  has  purloined  the  demands  and  the  vocabulary 
of  the  American  Labor  movement,  and  has  adopted 
them  as  its  own,  and  now  you  ask  the  American  Fed- 
eration of  Labor  whether  it  favors  them. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Then,  Mr.  Gompers,  whether  we 
have  purloined  our  program  or  not,  the  American  Fed- 
eration of  Labor,  as  the  original  inventor  or  other- 
wise, fully  approves  of  it  with  the  exception  of  the 
small  differences  I  mentioned,  is  that  correct? 

Mr.  Gompers:    I  would  like  to  hear  the  question. 

(The  question  was  read  by  the  stenographer.) 

Mr.  Hillquit:    Suppose  we  waive  that  answer? 

Mr.  Gompers:  No,  don't  waive  the  answer.  Just 
amend  your  question  so  that  it  is  comprehensible. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  It  is  merely  in  the  nature  of  a 
summary,  Mr.  Gompers.  I  have  read  to  you  point 
by  point  the  working  program  of  the  Socialist  Party 
with  reference  to  economic  and  political  measures, 
and  I  have  asked  you  in  each  instance  whether  your 
Federation  approves  of  such  measures.  Your  answer 
has  been  in  the  affirmative,  uniformly,  except  on  the 
questions  of  the  minimum  wage  and  the  maximum 
workday.  As  to  those  questions  we  agreed  on  the 
principle,  but  you  would  secure  it  by  purely  economic 
action  and  the  Socialist  Party  bv  legal  enactment.  It 
is  in  the  nature  ot  a  summary.  I  want  it  on  the 
record.    You  may  answer  or  not,  as  you  please. 

Mr.  Gompers:  What  did  you  want  me  to  answer? 

Mr.  Hillquit:    Is  it  so  or  is  it  not  so? 

Mr.  Gompers  :  I  say  that  these  demands  which  you 
have  enumerated  have  been  promulgated,  declared  and 
fought  for,  and  in  many  instances  accomplished,  by 
the  American  Federation  of  Labor  and  the  organized 
labor  movement  of  the  country.  Your  question  would 
indicate  that  you  claim  the  adhesion  of  the  American 
labor  movement  to  original  propositions  when,  as  a 

lis 


matter  of  fact,  they  have  been  put  into  your  platform 
simply  as  vote-catchers.* 

Mr.  Hillquit  :  Then  you  admit  the  identity  of 
the  program  but  you  deny  priority  on  our  part  ? 

Mr.  Gompers:  And  I  question  the  purpose. 

Mr.  Hillquit  :  Now,  Mr.  Gompers,  let  me  ask  you, 
has  the  Republican  Party  or  the  Democratic  Party 
purloined  from  you  the  same  demands? 

Mr.  Gomper^:   Not  all  of  them,  but  many  of  them. 

Mr.  Hillquit:    Any  of  them? 

Mr.  Gompers:  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Hillquit:   How  many.    And  which? 

Mr.  Gompers:  Will  you  give  me  a  few  minutes' 
time,  Mr.  Chairman? 

Chairman  Walsh:    Do  you  wish  to  be  excused? 

Mr.  Gompers:  No,  sir;  only  a  few  minutes'  time, 
that  I  may  answer, 

Mr.  Hillquit:   Do  you  want  to  consult  with  me? 

Mr.  Gompers:  No,  I  don't  need  advice  from  you, 
Brother  Hillquit. 

I  may  say,  Mr.  Chairman,,  that  because  my  friend, 
Mr.  Gordon,  did  me  the  kindness  of  looking  up  and 
handing  to  me  a  copy  of  the  American  Federationist, 


*  Historically  this  assertion  is  entirely  wrong.  Some  of  the 
most  important  measures  discussed  in  the  preceding  pages, 
such  as  the  reduction  of  workhours,  the  fixing  of  a  minimum 
wage,  the  abolition  of  child  labor  and  the  freedom  of  the 
press,  were  first  formulated  by  the  International  Workmen's 
Association  under  the  leadership  of  Karl  Marx,  in  the  sixties 
of  the  last  century,  and  the  Socialist  Labor  Party  of  this  coun- 
try had  a  full  program  of  industrial  and  political  reform  five 
years  before  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  was  organ- 
ized. -It  is  true,  however,  that  the  Socialist  Party  makes  it 
a  rule  to  incorporate  in  its  platform  all  new  progressive  de- 
mands of  organized  labor  as  soon  as  they  are  formulated. 
That  is  its  mission  in  politics  as  a  working  class  party.  To 
speak  of  "purloining"  such  demands  for  the  purpose  of 
"catching"  the  votes  of  the  workers  for  the  cause  of  the 
workers,  shows  a  singular  misconception  of  the  object  and 
methods  of  the  labor  movement. 

116 


it  would  be  erroneous  to  place  the  construction  upon 
that  that  he  has  prepared  my  questions  or  my  answer?, 
or  that  he  has  helped  me  in  any  other  way  than  I  have 
stated.  The  significance  of  this  remark  may  be  outside 
of  the  record  rather  than  in. 

Chairman  Walsh  :    It  is  really  lost  upon  me. 

Mr.  Gompers:  I  am  sure  it  is  not  lost  upon  my 
cross-examiner.    Is  it? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Nothing  is  lost  on  me,  Mr.  Gom- 
pers, that  comes  from  you. 

Mr.  Gompers:  In  answer  to  the  question  pro- 
pKDunded  by  Mr.  Hillquit,  I  think  I  ought  to  say  that 
among  the  demands  which  the  labor  movement  of 
America  makes  is  the  limitation  of  the  powers  of  the 
President  of  the  United  States  in  the  exercise  of  his 
veto  upon  the  legislation  of  the  representatives  of  the 
people. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  That  is  contained  in  our  platform 
likewise,   Mr.   Gompers. 

Mr.  Gompers:  The  only  member  of  Congress  the 
Socialist  Party  has  ever  had  sustained  two  vetoes  of 
the  President  of  the  United  States. 

We  also  have  secured  the  election  of  United  States 
Senators  by  the  direct  vote  of  the  people. 

I  have  here,  Mr.  Chairman,  the  report  which  I  made 
to  the  International  Secretariat,  ic,  the  organized 
expression  of  the  labor  movement  oi  the  civilized 
world.  It  bears  the  general  caption :  "President 
Gompers'  Report  to  the  International  Secretariat," 
and  the  sub-captions : 
"i.     National  Legislative  Gains  for  1912. 

2.  State  Legislative  Gains  for  1912. 

3.  National'  Economic  Gains  for  1912." 

It  would  take  me  about  half  an  hour  to  read  the 
report  but  I  submit  that  I  have  no  desire  to  bore  the 
Commission  or  to  take  up  unnecessary  time  of  the 
Commission  and  counsel.     If  it  can  be  incorporated 

117 


here  as  my  answer  to  the  question  of  the  gentleman, 
you  will  find  it  comprehensive. 

Chairman  Walsh  :  As  I  understand  Mr.  Hill- 
quit's  question,  he  has  asked  you  to  call  attention  to 
the  places  in  the  platforms  of  the  Democratic  or 
Republican  Parties  where  demands  are  made  for  the 
same  social  measures  as  he  read  to  you  this  morning, 
is  that  correct? 

Mr.  Hillquit:   That  is  correct. 

Chairman  Walsh  :  Can  you  do  that  by  referring 
to  your  notes,  just  read  into  the  record  when  and 
where  the  demand  was  made  by  either  one  of  the 
parties  ? 

Mr.  Gompers:  I  cannot  do  that  just  now  from 
memory.  I  have  not  the  platform  declarations  of  the 
State  Committees. 

Chairman  Walsh  :  Then  it  is  impossible  to  do 
it  on  account  of  the  comprehensive  nature  of  the 
question  at  this  time? 

Mr.  Gompers:  I  supplement  this  answer  by  saying 
that  I  here  submit  to  the  Commission  a  report  of  the 
legfislative  gains  secured  at  the  hands  of  Congress  and 
the  several  legislatures  composed  of  Republicans  and 
Democrats  and  Prohibitionists  and  Progressives. 

Chairman  Walsh  :  Very  well.  That  may  be 
made  a  part  of  the  record  then,  and  not  read  in  ex- 
tenso. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Now,  Mr.  Gompers,  to  take  up  an- 
other subject,  is  it  your  conception  or  that  of  the 
Federation,  that  workers  in  the  United  States  to-day 
receive  the  full  product  of  their  labor? 

Mr.  Gompers  :  I  think,  but  I  am  not  quite  so  sure, 
that  I  know  what  you  have  in  mind. 

Mr.  Hillquit:    Do  you  understand  my  question? 

Mr  Gompers:  I  think  I  do.  In  the  generally  ac- 
cepted sense  of  that  term,  they  do  not. 

Mr.  Hillquit:   In  any  particular  sense,  yes? 

Mr.  Gompers:    No. 

118 


Mr.  Hillquit:  Then  the  workers  of  this  country 
do  not  receive  the  whole  product  of  their  labor?  Can 
you  hazard  a  guess  as  to  what  proportion  of  the  pro- 
duct they  do  receive  in  the  shape  of  wages? 

Mr,  Gompers:  I  am  not  a  good  guesser,  and  I 
doubt  that  there  is  any  value  in  a  guess. 

Mr,  Hillquit:  You  have  no  general  idea,  have 
you,  on  the  subject? 

Mr  Gompers:  I  have  a  most  general  idea,  but  I 
am  not  called  upon  to  guess, 

Mr.  Hillquit  :  No.  Will  you  please  give  us  your 
most  general  idea? 

Mr,  Gompers:  As  to  what  proportion? 

Mr,  Hillquit:  As  to  the  approximate  proportion 
of  their  product  which  the  workers,  as  a  whole,  get, 

Mr.  Gompers:  I  will  say  that  it  is  impossible  for 
any  one  to  definitely  say  what  proportion  the  workers 
receive  as  a  reward  for  their  labor;  but  it  is  a  fact 
that,  due  to  the  organized  labor  movement  they  have 
received,  and  are  receiving,  a  larger  share  of  the 
product  of  their  labor  than  they  ever  did  in  the  his- 
tory of  modern  society, 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Then  one  of  the  functions  of  or- 
ganized labor  is  to  increase  the  share  of  the  workers 
in  the  product  of  their  labor,  is  that  correct  ? 

Mr.  Gompers:  Yes,  sir.  Organized  labor  makes 
constantly  increasing  demand  upon  society  for  reward 
for  the  services  which  the  workers  render  to  society, 
and  without  which  civilized  life  would  be  impossible. 

Mr.  Hillquit  :  And  these  demands  for  an  increas- 
ing share  of  the  product  of  labor  continue  as  a  grad- 
ual process  all  the  time? 

Mr.  Gompers:  I  am  not  so  sure  as  to  gradual 
process.  Sometimes  it  is  not  a  gradual  process,  but 
it  is  all  the  ti'me. 

Mr.  Hillquit:    All  the  time? 

Mr.  Gompers:   Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Hillquit:    Then,  Mr.  Gompers,  you  assume 

119 


that  the  organized  labor  movement  has  generally  suc- 
ceeded in  forcing  a  certain  increase  of  the  portion  of 
the  workers'  share  in  the  general  product,  do  you? 

Mh.  Gompers:    Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Hillquit:   And  it  demands  more  now? 

Mr.  Gompers:   Yes,  sir.. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  And  if  it  should  get,  say,  5  per 
cent,  more  within  the  next  year,  will  the  organized 
labor  movement  rest  contented  with  that,  and  stop? 

Mr.  Gompers:  Not  if  I  know  anything  about  hu- 
man nature. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Will  the  organized  movement  stop 
in  its  demands  for  an  ever  greater  share  in  the  pro- 
duct at  any  time  before  it  receives  the  full  product, 
and  before  complete  social  justice,  as  it  sees  it,  is 
done? 

Mr.  Gompers:  The  working  people  are  human 
beings — as  all  other  people.  They  are  prompted  by 
the  same  desires  and  hopes  of  a  better  life,  and  they 
are  not  willing  to  wait  until  after  tney  have  shuffled 
off  this  mortal  coil  for  the  better  life.  They  want  )t 
here  and  now.  They  want  to  make  conditions  better 
for  their  children  so  that  tjiey  may  meet  the  newer 
problems  in  their  time.  The  working  people  are  presf  • 
ing  forward,  making  their  claims  and  presenting  those 
claims  with  whatever  power  they  have.  Pressing  for- 
ward to  secure  a  larger,  and  constantly  larger  share 
of  the  products.  They  are  working  towards  the  high 
est  and  best  ideals  of  social  justice. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Now,  "the  highest  and  best  ideals 
of  social  justice,"  as  applied  to  distribution  of  wealth, 
wouldn't  that  be  a  system  under  which  all  the  workers, 
manual,  mental,  directive  and  executive  would  together 
get  the  sum  total  of  all  the  products  of  their  toil  ? 

Mr.  Gompers:  Really,  a  fish  is  cauglit  by  a  tempt- 
ing bait;  a  mouse  or  a  rat  is  caught  in  a  trap  by  ;i 
tempting  bait.  The  intelligent,  common-sense  work- 
men prefer  to  deal  with  the  problems  of  to-day,  the 

120 


problems  with  which  they  are  bound  to  contend  it 
they  want  to  advance,  rather  than  to  deal  with  a  pic- 
ture and  a  dream  which  has  never  had,  and  I  am  sure 
never  will  have,  any  reality  in  the  actual  affairs  of 
humanity,  and  which  threaten,  if  they  could  be  intro- 
duced, the  worst  system  of  circumscriptional  effort 
and  activity  that  has  ever  been  invented  by  the  human 
mind, 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Mr.  Gompers,  I  would  like  to  get 
an  answer.  In  your  experience  with  the  labor  move- 
ment and  its  forward  march  towards  ever  greater  im- 
provement, and  greater  measure  of  social  justice,  can 
you  locate  a  point  at  which  the  labor  movement  will 
stop  and  rest  contented  so  long  as  the  workers  will 
receive  less  than  the  full  product  of  their  work? 

Mr.  Gompers:  I  say  that  the  workers,  as  human 
beings,  will  never  stop  at  any  point  in  the  effort  to 
secure  greater  improvements  in  their  conditions  and  a 
better  life  in  all  its  phases.  And  wherever  that  may 
lead  and  whatever  that  may  be  in  my  time  and  at  my 
age,  I  decline  to  permit  my  mind  or  my  activities  to 
be  labeled  by  any  particular  ism. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  I  do  not  try  to  attach  any  ism  to 
you,  but  the  question  I  ask  is  whether  the  American 
Federation  of  Labor  and  its  authorized  spokesman 
have  a  general  social  philosophy,  or  work  blindly  from 
day  to  day. 

Mr.  Gompers:    I  think  your  question  is 

Mr,.  Hillquit    (Interrupting)  :    Inconvenient? 

Mr.  Gompers:  No.  I  will  tell  you  what  it  is— it  is 
a  question  prompted  to  you,  and  is  an  insult. 

Mr.  Hillquit  :  It  is  not  a  question  prompted  to  me. 

Mr.  Gompers:    It  is  an  insult. 

Mr.  Hillquit:   Why,  Mr.  Gompers? 

Mr.  Gompers:  It  insinuates  that  the  men  and  the 
women  in  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  move- 
ment are  acting  blindly  from  day  to  day. 

Mr.  Hillquit  :   I  have  not  insinuated 

121 


Mr.  Gompers  (Interrupting)  :  Your  question  im- 
plies it. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  1  am  giving  you  an  opportunity 
to  deny. 

Mr.  Gompers:  If  a  man  should  ask  me  whether  1 
still  beat  my  wife,  any  answer  I  could  make  would 
incriminate  me.  If  I  answered  that  I  did  not,  the 
intimation  would  be  that  I  had  stopped.  If  I  an- 
swered that  I  did,  the  inference  would  be  that  I  was 
continuing  to  beat  her. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  But,  Mr.  Gompers,  my  question 
bears  no  analogy  to  that  story 

Mr.  Gompers  (Interrupting):  Your  question  is  an 
insult,  and  a  studied  one. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Now,  will  you  state  whether  you 
will  or  will  not  answer  my  question? 

Mr.  Gompers:   Will  you  repeat  the  question? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  My  question  was  whether  the 
American  Federation  of  Labor,  as  represented  by  its 
spokesman,  has  a  general  social  philosophy,  or  whether 
the  organization  is  working  blindly  from  day  to  day. 
Now,  that  is  a  plain  question. 

Mr.  Gompers:  Yes,  it  is  a  plain  question — it  is  a 
plain  insult. 

Chairman  Walsh  :  Do  you  refuse  to  answer  it  on 
the  ground  that  it  is  insulting? 

Mr.  Gompers:   Yes,  sir. 

Chairman  Walsh  :  That  is  all,  then. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Then  inform  me  on  this:  In  its 
practical  work  in  the  labor  movement  is  the  American 
Federation  of  Labor  guided  by  a  general  social  philos- 
ophy, or  is  it  not? 

Mr.  Gompers:  It  is  guided  by  the  history  of  the 
past,  drawing  its  lessons  from  history.  It  knows  the 
conditions  by  which  the  working  people  are  sur- 
rounded. It  works  along  the  line  of  least  resistance 
and  endeavors  to  accomplish  the  best  results  in  im- 
proving the  condition  of  the  working  people,  men, 

122 


women  and  children,  to-day  and  to-morrow — and  to- 
morrow's to-morrow  and  each  day,  making  it  a  better 
day  than  the  one  that  had  gone  before.  The  guiding 
principle,  philosophy  and  aim  of  the  labor  movement 
is  to  secure  a  better  life  for  all. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  But  in  these  efforts  to  improve 
conditions  from  day  to  day,  you  must  have  an  under- 
lying standard  of  what  is  better,  don't  you? 

Mr.  Gompers:  No.  You  start  out  with  a  given 
program,  and  everything  must  conform  to  it;  and 
if  the  facts  do  not  conform  to  your  theories,  then  your 
actions  betray  the  state  of  mind  "so  much  the  worse 
for  the  facts." 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Mr.  Gompers,  what  I  ask  you  n 
this :  '  You  say  you  try  to  make  the  conditions  of  the 
workers  better  every  day.  In  order  to  determine 
whether  the  conditions  are  better  or  worse,  you  must 
have  some  standards  by  which  you  distinguish  the 
bad  from  the  good  in  the  labor  movement,  must  you 
not? 

Mr.  Gompers:  Certainly.  Does  it  require  much 
discernment  to  know  that  a  wage  of  $3.00  and  a 
workday  of  8  hours  a  day  in  sanitary  workshops  are 
all  better  than  $2.50  and  12  hours  a  day  under  perilous 
conditions  of  labor?  It  does  not  require  much  con- 
ception of  a  social  philosophy  to  understand  that. 

Mr,.  PIillquit:  Then,  Mr.  Gompers,  by  parity  of 
reasoning,  $4.00  a  day  and  7  hours  of  work,  and  truly 
attractive  working  conditions  are  still  better  ? 

Mr.  Gompers  :    Unquestionably. 

Mr.  Hillquit  :    Therefore 

Mr.  Gompers  (Interrupting)  :  Just  a  moment.  I 
have  not  stipulated  $4.00  a  day  or  $8.00  a  day  or  any 
number  of  dollars  a  day  or  8  hours  a  day  or  7  hours 
a  day  or  any  number  of  hours  a  day.  The  aim  is  to 
secure  the  best  conditions  obtainable  for  the  workers. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Yes;  and  when  these  conditions 
are  obtained 

123 


Mr.  Gompers  (Interrupting)  :  Why,  then  we  want 
better 

Mr.  Hillquit  (Continuing)  :  You  will  still  strive 
for  better? 

Mr.  Gompers:   Yes. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Now,  my  question  is,  will  this  ef- 
fort on  the  part  of  organized  labor  ever  stop  before 
the  workers  receive  the  full  reward  for  their  labor? 

Mr.  Gompers  :  It  won't  stop  at  all  at  any  particular 
point,  whether  it  be  that  towards  which  you  have  just 
stated,  or  anything  else.  The  working  people  will 
never  stop  in  their  effort  to  obtain  a  better  life  for 
themselves,  and  for  their  wives  and  for  their  children 
and  for  humanity. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Then  the  object  of  the  organized 
workmen  is  to  obtain  complete  social  justice  for  them- 
selves and  for  their  wives  and  for  their  children? 

Mr.  Gompers:  It  is  the  effort  to  obtain  a  better  life 
every  day. 

Mr.  Hillquit:    Every  day,  and  always 

Mr,.  Gompers  (Interrupting)  :  Every  day.  That 
does  not  limit  it. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Until  such  time 

Mr.  Gompers    (Interrupting)  :   Not  until  any  time. 

Mr.  Hillquit:    In  other  words 

Mr.  Gompers  (Interrupting)  :  In  other  words,  we 
go  farther  than  you.  (Laughter  and  applause  in  the 
audience.)     You  have  an  end;  we  have  not. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Then,  Mr.  Gompers,  you  want  to 
go  on  record  as  saying  that  the  American  Federation 
of  Labor  goes  farther  in  its  endeavors  than  the  So- 
cialist Party.  If  the  Socialist  Party  has  for  its  pres- 
ent purpose  the  abolition  of  the  system  of  profits  and 
wages,  and  seeks  to  secure  for  the  workers  the  full 
product  of  their  labor,  if  this  is  the  purposes  which 
it  seeks  to  obtain  by  gradual  steps — then  I  under- 
stand you  to  say  that  the  American  Federation  of 
Labor  goes  beyond  that, 

124 


Mr.  Gompers:  I  have  said  this,  and  1  say  that  no 
categorical  answer,  Yes,  or  No,  can  be  given  to  that 
question.  As  just  indicated,  as'  to  the  abohtion  of 
private  profits  and  wages — there  are  a  number  of 
employers  who  quite  agree  with  you ;  they  would 
reduce  wages  or  take  wages  away  entirely.  The  ques- 
tion of  the  co-operative  commonwealth  and  the  owner- 
ship of  the  means  of  production  and  distribution  is 
implied  by  it.     Now,  let  me  say - 

Mr.  Hillquit  (Interrupting)  :  It  is  not,  Mr. 
Gompers. 

Mr.  Gompers:   Well,  all  right. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  I  am  not  proposing  any  system.  I 
want  your  aims  and  the  limits  of  your  aims. 

Mr.  Gompers:  By  your  question,  you  want  to 
place  me  in  the  position  of  saying  that  I  am  for  the 
system  of  society  which  some  of  you  dreamers  have 
conceived  of,  and  then  say  that  I  go  beyond  it. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  I  do  not,  Mr.  Gompers,  you  in- 
terrupted me 

Mr.  Gompers  (Interrupting)  :  Well,  you  inter- 
rupted me,  so  we  are  even.  And  I  say  that  the  move- 
ment of  the  working  people,  whether  under  the  Amer- 
ican Federation,  or  not,  will  be  simply  following  the 
human  impulse  for  improvement  in  their  condition, 
and  wherever  that  may  lead,  they  will  go,  without  hav- 
ing a  goal  up  to  yours  or  surpassing  yours.  It  will 
lead  them  constantly  to  greater  material,  physical, 
social  and  moral  well-being. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Then,  Mr.  Gompers,  you  would 
not  say  that  the  difference  between  the  program  of 
the  American  Federation  of  Labor,'  and  that  of  the 
Socialist  Party  is  a  quantitative  one — that  the  Socialist 
Party  wants  more  than  the  American  Federation  of 
Labor.    You  would  not  say  that,  would  you? 

Mr.  Gompers:  I  don't  know  that  it  is  necessary 
that  I  should  make  the  comparison.     It  is  not  inter- 

125 


esting  at  all,  nor  is  it  a  contribution  to  the  subject 
which  the  Commission  desires  to  examine. 

Mr.  Hillquit:    You  decline  to  answer? 

Mr.  Gompers:  The  question  is  not  germane  to  the 
subject  under  inquiry,  and  is  not  necessary. 

Chairman  Walsh  :  I  would  like  to  hear  it  an- 
swered if  possible,  Mr.  Gompers.  If  it  is  not  possible 
for  any  reason,  very  well. 

Mr.  Gompers:  May  I  hear  the  question  read? 

(Question  read.) 

Mr.  Gompers:  Socialism  is  a  proposition  to  place 
the  working  people  of  the  country  and  of  the  world 
in  a  physical  and  material  straight- jacket. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Pardon  me,  Mr.  Gompers,  I  have 
not  asked  you  your  opinion  about  the  effects  of  the 
co-operative  commonwealth.  I  am  speaking  merely 
about  the  aim  to  abolish  the  wage  system  and  the 
program  to  secure  for  the  workers  the  full  product 
of  their  labor;  and  I  am  asking  you  whether  on  these 
points  we  demand  more  than  the  American  Federation 
has  ultimately  in  view. 

Mr.  Gompers:  I  think  you  demand  something  lo 
which  the  American  labor  movement  declines  to  give 
its  adherence. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Then  do  I  understand  you  to  say 
that  the  American  labor  movement  would  discounte- 
nance the  abolition  of  the  wage  system  and  the  return 
of  the  full  reward  of  labor  to  the  workers? 

Mr.  Gompers:  Your  question  is  an  assumption,  and 
is  unwarranted,  for  as  a  matter  of  fact  we  decline  to 
commit  our  labor  movement  to  your  species  of  specu- 
lative philosophy. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  I  have  not  introduced  speculative 
philosophy,  Mr.  Gompers.  If  I  cannot  make  myself 
clear,  please  tell  me  so. 

Chairman  Walsh  :  May  I  be  permitted  here  to 
ask  the  stenographer  to  read  that  last  question? 

Mr.  Hillquit:   Certainly,  Mr.  Chairman. 

126 


(The  question  read  as  follows)  :  1  am  speaking 
merely  about  the  aim  to  abolish  the  wage  system,  and 
about  the  program  to  secure  to  the  workers  the  full 
product  of  their  labor,  and  I  am  asking  in  this  respect 
whether  we  demand  more  than  the  American  Federa- 
tion of  Labor  has  ultimately  in  view. 

Chairman  Walsh  :  That  is  with  reference  to  get- 
ting the  full  product  of  labor  alone  ? 

Mr.  Hillquit:   Yes. 

Chairman  Walsh  :  Now,  can  you  answer  that 
directly,  Mr.  Gompers? 

Mr.  Gompers:  No;  that  is  impossible  to  answer  by 
a  Yes  or  No. 

Chairman  Walsh :  Then  let  it  stand  there,  be- 
cause that  implies  that  it  is  impossible  to  answer  it. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Mr.  Gompers,  when  you  stated 
first  that  the  workingmen  of  to-day  do  not  get  the 
full  reward  for  their  labor  or  the  full  product  of 
their  toil,  will  you  tell  me  who  gets  fhe  part  which 
is  withheld   from  the  workers  ? 

Mr.  Gompers:  Investment,  superintendence,  the 
agencies  for  the  creation  of  wants  among  the  people, 
and  many  others. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Well,  then,  in  your  opinion  those 
are  legitimate  factors  in  industry  entitled  to  reward? 

Mr.  Gompers  :  Many  of  them,  yes ;  many  of  them 
are  being  eliminated. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Which  ones  are  entitled  and  which 
ones  are  not  entitled  to  reward? 

Mr.  Gompers:  Superintendence,  the  creation  of 
wants,  administration,  return  for  investment 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Return  for  investment?  Does  that 
include  every  kind  of  capital  invested  in  industry, 
regardless  of  origin? 

Mr.  Gompers:   No,  sir. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Then  what  do  you  mean  by  return 
for  investment? 

Mr.    Gompers:    For  honest   investment.     I   don't 

127 


mean  watered  stocks  or  inflated  holdings,  but  honest 
investment. 

Mr.  Hillquit:    Honest  stock  investment? 

Mr,  Gompers:  Honest  investment.  I  did  not  say 
"stock  investment." 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Well,  I  am  talking  about  stock 
investment,  Mr.  Gompers.  Do  you  consider  dividends 
paid  by  corporations  as  distinguished  from  salaries 
paid  for  superintendence  and  so  on — do  you  consider 
that  a'legitimate  charge  on  the  products  of  labor? 

Mr.  Gompers:  That  depends  entirely  as  to  the 
character  of  the  services  performed. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Now,  I  assume  that  no  service  is 
performed.  So  far  as  services  are  performed  are 
concerned,  we  have  classified  those  under  the  head 
of  superintendence,  management,  initiation,  and  so  on. 
Now,  I  am  referring  to  the  dividends  on  stock,  which 
is  paid  to  sto<^kholders  by  virtue  of  stock  ow^nership, 
and  regardless  of  any  activity  on  the  part  of  the  stock- 
holder. 

Mr.  Gompers:  I  am  speaking  of  honest  investment, 
too,  which  you  did  not  include. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Will  you  please  answer  that  ques- 
tion with  such  qualifications  as  you  may  deem  proper 
to  make  ? 

Mr.  Gompers:  I  have  already  replied,  and  I  now 
repeat,  upon  honest  investment,  yes. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Mr.  Gompers,  assume  that  I  pur- 
chase to-day  in  the  open  market  and  pay  the  full  price 
for,  say,  lOO  shares  of  Steel  Corporation  stock.  The 
next  quarter  year  I  get  my  dividends  on  it.  Am  I  en- 
titled to  such  dividends  ? 

Mr.  Gompers:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  suggest  that  if  Mr. 
Hillquit  is  going  to  permit  this  investigation  to  de- 
generate into  a  question  of  high  finance,  why,  we  had 
better  get  a  high  financier  here. 

Chairman  Walsh  :   I  think  that  is  a  proper  ques- 

128 


tion  and  germane  to  this  inquiry,  but  if  you  cannot 
answer  it,  you  may  say  so. 

Mr.  Gompers:  I  wish  respectfully,  Mr.  Chairman, 
to  differ  from  that  remark  of  the  Chair 

Chairman  Walsh  :  Then  you  don't  care  to  an- 
swer? 

Mr.  Gompers:  I  decline  to  answer  it  on  the  ground 
that  it  is  not  material  to  the  question,  and  purely  a 
question  of  a  financial  character.  It  is  not  a  question 
upon  which  proper  interrogation  can  be  made. 

Chairman  Walsh  :  I  have  ruled  that  it  was,  but 
we  are  not  going  to  compel  Mr.  Gompers  to  reply  to  it, 

Mr,  Hillquit  :   No,  of  course  not, 

Chair,man  Walsh  :   Go  ahead. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Will  you  please  define  what  you 
call  honest  investment  as  distinguished 

Mr.  Gompers  (Interrupting) :  An  honest  man  finds 
no  difficulty  in  determining  what  is  honest, 

Mr,  Hillquit:  Now,  Mr.  Gompers,  that  is  really 
not  an  answer.  You.  have  made  that  statement,  and 
I  presume  you  mean  something  by  it;  I  should  like 
to  know  what  you  mean? 

Mr.  Gompers:  I  mean  honest,  actual  physical  in- 
vestment. 

Mr,  Hillquit:  Now,  I  am  asking  you,  does  the 
purchase  of  stock  with  real  physical  money,  at  the  full 
price  constitute  such  an  honest  investment? 

Mr,  Gompers:  First  let  me  say,  in  answer  to  that 
question,  that  with  the  manipulations  of  stocks  and 
of  the  stock  market,  I  am  out  of  harmony,  I  am 
opposed  to  it,  and  have  done  and  will  do  whatever  I 
can  to  eliminate  that  speculation  involved  in  the  fun- 
damentals of  stock  jobbery  and  stock  sales. 

Mr,  Hillquit:  Mr,  Gompers,  you  are  familiar 
with  industrial  conditions  as  few  men  in  this  country. 
You  know  perfectly  well  that  the  most  important  in- 
dustries in  the  United  States  are  managed  and  oper- 
ated by  corporations,  and  you  know  that  the  income 

129 


from  such  industries  is  distributed  very  largely  in  tho 
form  of  dividends  on  stocks  and  interest  on  bond~, 
don't  you? 

Mr.  Gompers:    Yes.  sir. 

Mr.  HiLLQiTiT :  Now,  I  am  asking  you  this  ques- 
tion: As  the  President  of  the  American  Federation  of 
Labor  do  you  consider  that  the  vast  sum  of  money 
paid  annually  by  industry  in  thd  shape  of  such  divi- 
dends on  stock  and  interest  on  bonds  in  the  various 
industries  are  a  legitimate  and  proper  charge  upon 
the  product  of  labor,  or  do  you  not? 

Mr.  Gompers:   I  do  not. 

Mr.  Hillquit  :  That  is  an  answer.  Then  the  stock 
holders  or  bond  bonders  of  modern  corporations  re- 
ceive a  workless  income  from  the  product  of  the 
workers  who  have  produced  it.    Is  that  your  opinion  ? 

Mr.  Gompers:  Unquestionably. 

Mr.  Hillquit:    And  the  efforts  of  the  American 
labor  movement  to  secure  a  larger  share  are  directed 
against  that  class  who  gets  such  improper  income? 
'  Mr.  Gomper^  :   Against  all  who 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Against  all  who  obtain  a  workless 
income  which  comes  from  the  product  of  labor.  Is 
that  correct? 

Mr.  Gompers:  Well,  all  who  illegitimately  stand 
between  the  workers  and  the  attainment  of  a  better 
life. 

Mr.  Hillquit  :  Which  means,  or  does  it  not  mean, 
all  those  who  derive  an  income  without  work  by  virtue 
of  their  control  of  the  industry? 

Mr.  Gompers:  No. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Whom  do  you  except? 

Mr.  Gompers:  I  except,  as  I  have  before  called 
attention  to,  honest  investment,  honest  enterprise. 

Mr.  Hillquit  :  Have  the  efforts  of  the  workers  hi 
the  American  Federation  of  Labor  and  in  other  labor 
organizations  to  obtain  a  larger  share  of  the  product^ 

130 


met  a  favorable  reception  from  those  who  obtain  what 
we  may  call  the  unearned  part  of  the  product? 

Mr.  Gompers:    If  you  mean  the  employers 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Employers,  stockholders,  bond-, 
holders,  the  capitalist  class  generally. 

Mr.  Gompers:  As  a  matter  of  fact,  there  has  been 
very  much  opposition  to  the  efforts  of  the  working 
people  to  secure  improved  conditions. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  And  that  opposition  is  based  upon 
the  desire  of  the  beneficiaries  of  the  present  system  of 
distribution  to  retain  as  much  as  possible  of  their  pres- 
ent share  or  to  increase  it,  is  it  not? 

Mr.  G<:)Mpers:  I  suppose  it  is  not  difficult  to  de- 
termine that  that  is  one  of  the  reasons.  But  one  addi- 
tional reason  is  that  there  are  employers  who  live  in 
the  20th  century  and  have  the  mentality  of  the  i6th 
century  in  regard  to  their  attitude  toward  working 
people.  They  still  imagine  that  they  are  the  masters 
of  all  that  serve,  and  that  any  attempt  on  the  part 
of  the  working  people  to  secure  improvement  in  their 
condition  is  a  species  of  rebellion — a  rebellious  spirit 
which  must  be  bounded  down.  But  we  find  this,  Mr. 
Hillquit,  that  after  we  have  had  some  contests  with 
employers  of  such  a  character,  whether  we  have  won 
the  battle  or  lost  it,  if  we  but  maintain  our  organiza- 
tion, there  is  less  difficulty  thereafter  in  reaching  a 
joint  agreement  or  a  collective  bargain  involving  im- 
proved conditions  for  the  working  people. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  That  is,  if  you  retain  your  organ- 
ization ? 

Mr.  Gompers:    Yes,   sir. 

Mr.  Hillquit  :  And  the  stronger  the  organization, 
the  more  likelihood  of  securing  such  concessions,  is 
that  correct? 

Mr.  Gompers  : .  Unquestionably. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Then  it  is  not  on  account  of  the 
changed  sentiment  of  the  employer,  that  he  is  ready  to 

131 


yield,  but  on  account  of  greater  strength  shown  by  the 
employes,  is  that  correct? 

Mr.   Gompers:    Not  entirely. 

Mr.  Hillquit:    No,  why  not? 

Mr.  Gompers:  Not  entirely,  for,  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  the  employer  changes  his  sentiment  when  he  is 
convinced  that  the  workingmen  have  demonstrated 
that  they  have  the  right  to  have  a  voice  in  determining 
the  questions  affecting  the  relations  between  them- 
selves and  their  employers,  as  evidenced,  if  you  please, 
by  the  late  Mr.  Baer,  who,  you  may  recall,  once  de- 
clared that  he  would  not  confer  with  the  representa- 
tive of  the  miners  or  anyone  who  stood  for  them ;  that 
he  and  his  associates  were  the  trustees  of  God  in  the 
administration  of  their  property,  and  appointed  to  take 
care  of  the  rights  and  interests  of  the  working  people. 
Well,  he  lived  to  revise  his  judgment,  as  many  other 
employers  live  to  revise  their  judgments,  and  have 
come  to  agreements  with  their  workmen. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Now,  Mr.  Gompers,  the  employers 
as  a  class,  being  interested  in  retaining  their  share  of 
the  general  product  or  increasing  it,  and  the  workers 
as  you  say,  being  determined  to  demand  an  ever 
greater  and  greater  share  of  it,  would  you  say  that 
the  economic  interests  between  the  two  classes  are 
harmonious  or  not? 

Mr.  Gompers:  I  say  they  are  not,  and  as  I  am 
under  affirmation  before  this  Commission,  I  take  this 
opportunity  of  saying  that  no  man  within  the  range 
of  my  acquaintance  has  ever  been  so  thoroughly  mis- 
represented on  that  question  as  I  have. 

Mr.  Hillquit:   State  your  actual  position. 

Chairman  Walsh  :  At  this  joint  the  Commission 
will  adjourn  until  2  o'clock. 


132 


FOURTH   SESSION. 
The  Conflicts  between  Capital  and  Labor 

Chairman  Walsh  :  The  Commission  ;will  now 
come  to  order,  please.  You  may  proceed,  Mr. 
Hillquit. 

Mr.  Gompers:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  desire  to  finish 
the  answer  which  I  was  about  to  make  to  the  question 
upon  the  recess  being  taken. 

The  question  propounded  essentially  was  whether  I 
believed  that  the  relations  betwee  the  employers  and 
employes  are  harmonious. 

Mr.  Hillquit:    Economically  harmonious. 

Mr.  Gompers:  I  answered  No,  and  I  stated  that  1 
have  been  misrepresented  by  Socialist  writers  and 
orators  upon  that  subject  so  many  times  that  they 
themselves  finally  believe  it,  and  no  amount  of  em- 
phatic repudiation  of  that  statement,  and  no  matter 
how  often  that  repudiation  was  expressed  by  me,  has 
made  any  change  in  the  assertion  that  my  position  is 
contrary  to  the  one  I  have  stated  here. 

Mr,.  Hillquit:  Then  you  want  to  go  on  record 
now,  Mr.  Gompers,  as  stating  that,  in  your  opinion,  the 
economic  interests  of  the  employing  classes,  and  those 
of  the  workers  are  not  harmonious  ? 

Mr.  Gompers:  I  have  no  desire  to  particularly  go 
on  record  here  upon  that  subject.  That  record  has 
been  made  from  my  earliest  understanding  of  the  con- 
ditions which  prevail  in  the  industrial  world. 

Mr.  Hillquit  :  And  that  is  your  answer  now  ? 

Mr.  Gompers:  That  has  been  my  position  ever 
since,  and  has  not  been  changed  in  the  slightest.    There 

133 


are  times  when  there  are,  for  temporary  purposes, 
reconcilable  conditions,  but  they  are  temporary  only. 
When  a  fair  and  reasonable  opportunity  presents  it- 
self for  continued  improvement  in  the  condition  of  the 
workers,  that  movement  must  necessarily  go  on,  and 
will  go  on. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  And  that  movement,  Mr.  Gom- 
pers,  must  be  a  movement  of  the  workers  as  workers, 
is  that  correct? 

Mr.  Gompers:  Yes,  sir,  undominated  by  the  so- 
called  intellectuals  or  butters-in, 

Mr.  Hillquit:   In  other  words,  the  movement  for 
the  working  class  improvement  must  be  conducted  by  , 
the  workers  as  such  in  order  to  be  effective? 

Mr.  Gclmpers:  To  be  the  most  effective. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  And  it  must  be  necessarily  con- 
ducted against  the  employing  classes? 

Mr.  Gompers:  It  is  conducted  for  the  workin;:,' 
people. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  And  is  it  or  is  it  not  conducted 
against  the  interests  of  the  employing  people? 

Mr.  Gompers:  It  is  conducted  for  the  interests  of 
the  employed  people. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Now,  Mr.  Gompers,  you  have 
stated  before  that  the  interests  of  the  working  people  . 
are  not  harmonious  with  those  of  the  employing 
classes.  You  have  also  stated  that  in  order  to  secure 
lasting  and  valuable  improvements,  the  workers  as 
such  must  conduct  their  own  battles.  Are  not  such 
battles  conducted  against  somebody? 

Mr.  Gompers:  They  are  primarily  conducted  for 
somebody. 

Mr,,  Hillquit:  But  can  a  battle  be  conducted  for 
somebody  which  is  not  also  conducted  against  some- 
body ? 

Mr.  Gompers:  As  to  those  who  stand  in  the  way 
and  are  hostile  to  the  advance  of  the  conditions  of  the 

134 


working'  people,  it  is  conducted  against  them,  whoever 
they  may  be. 

Mr.  Hillquit  :  Who  are  they,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
in  your  opinion  ? 

Mr.  Gompers  :  Those  employers  who  refuse  to  un- 
derstand modern  industrial  ^conditions  and  constant 
needs  for  advancement  of  the  working  people. 

Mr.  Hillquit  :  In  other  words,  those  employers 
who  refuse  to  accede  to  the  demands  of  organized 
labor,  is  that  correct? 

Mr.  Gompers:   Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Is  that  class  of  employers  limited 
to  only  such  who  have  a  narrow  social  vision?  Or 
does  it  extend  pretty  largely  to  the  entire  employing 
class,  in  your  experience. 

Mr.  Gompers  :  It  is  growing  less  and  less  so.  As 
a  matter  of  fact,  there  are  more  employers  to-day 
who  live  under  collective  bargains  with  their  organ- 
ized working  people  than  at  any  time  in  the  history  of 
the  industrial  world. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  And  as  to  those  employers  who 
have  agreements  for  collective  bargaining  with  em- 
ployes, do  they,  as  a  rule,  and  within  your  experience, 
volunteer  improvements  to  their  employes,  or  are  such 
improvements  forced  from  them  either  by  method  of 
collective  bargaining,  or  by  strikes  or  other  weapons 
of  the  labor  movement? 

Mr.  Gompers:  That  is  usually  in  the  initiative 
stages  of  the  altered  relations  between  workers  and 
employers.  Later,  there  is  a  realization  on  the  part 
of  the  employers  that  it  is  more  costly  to  enter  into 
prolonged  strikes  or  lockouts,  and  they  are  willing  to 
concede  demands  rather  than  to  have  the  industry  in- 
terrupted. This  grows  in  extent  and  alters  the  vision 
of  the  employer.  It  changes  his  attitude  toward  the 
workmen.  So  that  his  sentiment  and  views  are  often 
in  entire  accord  with  the  organization  of  the  working 
people. 

135 


Mr.  Hillquit:  Now,  taking  the  relations  of  the 
employer  and  employes  as  a  whole,  would  you  say 
that  the  gains  made  by  the  organized  labor  movement 
in  this  country  have  to  any  large  extent  been  the 
result  of  a  free  gift  on  the  part  of  the  employing 
classes  ?  Or  would  you  say  that  they  have  been  wrung 
from  the  employing  classes  by  organized  labor? 

Mr.  Gompers:  There  is  no  question  as  to  the  fact 
of  the  latter  alternative  in  your  question  being  the 
correct  one.  What  the  workingmen  of  America  have 
obtained  in  improved  conditions,  higher  wages  and 
shorter  hours  of  labor,  were  not  handed  to  them  on 
a  silver  platter.  They  had  to  organize,  they  had  to 
show  their  teeth,  they  had  to  strike,  and  they  had  to 
go  hungry  and  make  sacrifices  in  order  to  impress  upon 
the  employers  their  determination  to  be  larger  sharers 
in  the  production  of  wealth. 

Mr,  Hillquit  :  Then,  as  a  whole,  the  achievements 
of  the  American  labor  movements  have  been  accom- 
plished in  organized  struggles  of  the  workers  against 
their  employers.    Is  that  correct  ? 

Mr.  Gompers:  As  a  rule,  but 

Mr^  Hillquit:   There  are  exceptions? 

Mr.  Gompers:  There  are  exceptions.  For  in- 
stance, you  might  say  there  have  been  a  number  of 
workmen  who  were  unorganized,  or  nearly  unorgan- 
ized. The  instance  comes  to  me  just  now  of  the  coal 
miners.  In  their  first  strike,  in  1897,  there  was  not 
3  per  cent,  organized.  And  yet  upon  the  initiative  of 
the  union  and  the  recommendation  of  the  officers  of 
the  American  Federation  of  Labor,  a  movement  was 
inaugurated  to  present  a  scale  to  the  mine  operators 
in  the  bituminous  fields  with  a  warning  that  unless 
the  proposed  increase  in  wages  and  other  demands 
were  granted  upon  a  certain  day,  there  would  come  a 
call  urging  the  miners  to  lay  down  their  tools.  The 
employers  realizing  the  unorganized  condition  of  the 
miners  never  for  a  moment  imagined  that  the  small 

136 


union  would  have  any  influence  upon  their  so-called 
"independent  workers,"  the  workingmen  over  whorn 
they  had  exercised  domination  for  a  long  time.  As 
a  matter  of  fact,  however,  the  miners  responded  and, 
though  they  were  unorganized,  there  was  a  group- 
patriotism  to  which  I  referred  in  the  early  part  of  my 
testimony,  a  camaraderie,  an  understanding  of  their 
common  interests,  and  they  received  the  assistance 
of  their  fellow  workmen  in  other  industries,  the  full 
assistance  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor,  until, 
finally,  it  resulted  in  the  regeneration  of  the  miners. 
They  won,  and  they  established  the  8-hour  day,  the 
right  to  make  purchases  of  their  necessities  wherever 
they  chose;  the  right  to  be  at  least  like  any  other 
ordinary  citizens  and  men,  and  the  spirit  and  influence 
spread  until  it  reached  the  anthracite  coal  fields  and 
the  entire  competitive  fields  in  the  bituminous  coal 
fields  in  other  States  and  so  on.  The  same  is  true  in 
the  garment  trades,  in  the  needle  trades  and  in  several 
others. 

Mr.  Hillquit  :  Mr.  Gompers,  in  all  those  instances 
the  workers  organized  during  the  fight? 

Mr.  Gompers:    After  the  fight. 

Mr.  Hillquit  :  But  it  was  collective  action  on  their 
part,  anyhow? 

Mr.  Gompers:  Yes. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  And  there  is  no  exception  to  the 
rule  that  in  order  to  obtain  lasting  improvements,  the 
workers  must  collectively  struggle  for  it,  as  workers? 

Mr.  Gompers:   All  workers,  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Hillquit  :  And  in  such  struggles,  the  workers 
cannot  possibly  be  aided  by  the  employing  classes, 
can  they? 

Mr.  Gompers:  That  is  not  entirely  so,  because 
it  frequently  occurs  that  the  competitive  interests  of 
the  employers  may  impel  some  of  them  to  aid  the 
workingmen  in  the  establishment  of  what  has  become 

137 


known  as  standardized  conditions  in  the  trade — a  mini- 
mum of  standardization. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Just  incidents  in  the  struggles  of 
the  workers,  and  of  which  the  workers  take  advantage 
when  the  occasions  arise? 

Mr.  Gompers:    Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  But  on  the  whole,  the  American 
Federation  of  labor  recognizes  that  the  struggle  for 
improvement  of  the  conditions  of  the  workers  is  a 
struggle  of  the  workers,  and  principally  the  organized 
workers,  does  it  not? 

Mr.  Gomper^:    Yes. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  You  don't  tolerate  within  your 
unions  employers  as  members? 

Mr.  Gompers:  We  do  not.  That  is,  our  affiliated 
unions  do  not.  In  the  directly  affiliated  locals,  those 
locals  which  have  no  national  bodies  of  their  own,  we 
don't  permit  employers  to  become  members. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Can  you  conceive  of  any  scheme 
by  which  the  interests  of  the  employer  and  those  of 
the  employes  could  be  made  harmonious  and  their  co- 
operation could  lead  to  the  same  beneficent  results 
as  the  independent  struggles  of  the  workers? 

Mr.  Gompers:  I  know  of  no  means  by  which  the 
interests  of  the  employers  and  the  workingmen  can 
be  made  harmonious  in-  the  full  and  broad  sense  of 
that  term. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  And  do  you  concede  that  a  labor 
leader  is  most  useful  to  his  organization  and  to  his 
movement  when  he  devotes  his  time  and  his  thought, 
single-mindedly,  to  the  interests  of  the  labor  organ- 
izations ? 

Mr.  Gompers:   And  to  the  working  people. 

Mr.  Hillquit:   To  the  working  people? 

Mr.  Gompers:  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  And  do  you  consider  a  labor  leader 
who  combines  with  a  number  of  prominent  employers 
in  an  alleged  effort  to  improve  the  condition  of  the 

138 


workers  to  be  doing  useful  work  for  the  labor  move- 
ment ? 

Mr,  Gompers:  I  maintain  that  it  is  the  duty  of 
such  men  whom  you  designate  as  labor  leaders  to 
carry  the  word  and  message  and  to  preach  the  doc- 
trine and  the  gospel  of  justice  to  labor,  to  any  place 
on  earth,  and  to  any  people  on  earth ;  to  defend  that 
doctrine;  to  promote  a  Ijetter  understanding  among 
any  and  all.  It  is  the  duty  of  every  leader  to  make 
his  cause  known  wherever  the  opportunity  presents 
itself. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  For  the  benefit  and  advantage  of 
the  working  class,  is  it  not? 

Mr.  Gompers:   Absolutely  and  alone. 

Mr.  Hillquit  :  And  is  it  not  likewise  in  the  inter- 
ests of  the  large  employers  of  labor  to  carry  the  gospel 
of  their  interests  wherever  they  can,  and  particularly 
into  the  camp  of  labor? 

Mr,.  Gompers:  Whether  it  is  their  interests  I  am 
not  prepared  to  say,  but  I  judge  from  my  own  ex- 
perience that  that  is  not  the  truth,  and  it  is  not  the 
fact. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Mr.  Gompers,  do  you  know  of  the 
existence  of  the  National  Manufacturers'  Association  ? 

Mr.  Gompers:    I  do. 

Mr.  Hillquit  :  Do  you  think  that  the  National 
Manufacturers'  Association  has  no  interest  in  carrying 
the  antijlabor  gospel  or,  if  you  want,  the  employers' 
gospel,  to  all  four  quarters  of  the  earth  ? 

Mr.  Gompers  :  I  know  that  the  National  Associa- 
tion of  Manufacturers  is  absolutely  hostile  to  the  labor 
movement  and  everything  it  represents,  but  that  is 
not  such  an  association  in  which  a  labor  leader  is 
either  accepted  or  tolerated.  He  therefore  cannot 
bring  the  doctrine  and  the  message  of  labor  there. 

Mr.  Hillquit  :  Yes,  but  the  National  Association 
of  Manufacturers  is  an  association  of  employers.. 

Mr.  Gompers:   Yes,  it  is.    But,  Mr.  Hillquit,  don't 

139 


let  us  lose  unnecessary  time,  because  you  haven't  got 
that  association. in  mind. 

.Mr.  Hillquit:  We  will  come  to  it  if  you  will  just 
^Yait.  When  I  referred  to  the  National  Association 
of  Manufacturers,  I  meant  to  bring  out  the  point  that 
it  is  in  the  interests  of  the  employers  to  actively  organ- 
ize a  warfare  against  organized  labor.  Do  you  agree 
with  that? 

Mr,  Gompers:  Primarily  that  is  its  avowed  pur- 
pose. It  has  a  greater  purpose,  and  that  is  to  prevent 
organization  of  working  people  to  protect  themselves 
or  to  promote  their  interests.  As  a  matter  of  fact  the 
president  of  that  organization,  only  a  few  days  ago, 
declared  that  he  was  going  to  form  a  new  union — 
over  our  heads. 

Mr.  Hillquit  :  That  new  union,  in  this  case,  was 
not  to  be  a  bona  fide  labor  union,  but  a  scab  union, 
as  you  understand  it. 

Mr.  Gompers:  I  might  say  it  is  treason  to  the 
labor  movements  and  treason  to  the  interests  of  labor. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Now,  Mr.  Gompers,  isn't  that,  at 
any  rate,  to  your  mind  a  manifestation  of  the  fact  that 
employers  in  their  relation  to  employes  and  to  the 
labor  movement,  will  be  guided  by  their  economic  in- 
terests ? 

Mr.  Gompers  :  Generally  speaking,  yes ;  but  the 
largest  number  of  employers  are  not  member*  of  that 
organization,  and  are  not  in  accord  with  that  associa- 
tion. In  addition,  let  me  say,  that  I  know  that  there 
are  quite  a  number  of  employers  who  belong  to  the 
National  Association  of  Manufacturers  because  of  the 
trade  advantages  which  are  secured  through  the  other 
features  and  branches  of  the  activity  of  the  National 
Association  of  Manufacturers. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Admitting  that  the  employing 
classes  have  certain  economic  interests  opposed  to  the 
working  classes,  would  you  think  it  natural  to  expect 

140 


that  they  would  organize  in  defense,  of  their  intesests 
and  against  the  organized  labor  movement  ? 

Mk,  Gompers  :  If  they  organized  at  all  for  the  con- 
sideration of  that  subject,  that  would  be  the  purpose. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Mr.  Gompers,  do  you  know  the 
history  and  origin  of  the  National  Civic  Federation  ? 

Mr.  Gompers:   I  do. 

Mr.  Hillquit  :   By  whom  was  it  organized  ? 

Mr.  Gompers:  By  Mr.  Ralph  M.  Easley,  together 
with  some  businessmen  and  publicists  and  a  few  work- 
men in  the  City  of  Chicago. 

Mr.  Hillquit  :  When  it  became  a  national  institu- 
tion was  it  not  the  late  Mark  Hanna  who  was  its  first 
leading  spirit? 

Mr.  Gompers:  No,  sir,  that  is  a  Socialist  misrep- 
resentation of  the  facts. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Was  Mr.  Mark  Hanna  connected 
with  the  organization  at  all,  so  far  as  you  know? 

Mr.  Gompers:  Many  years  after  its  first  formation. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  When  it  became  an  institution  of 
national  scope  was  Mr.  Hanna  connected  with  it? 

Mr.  Gompers:  After  it  had  become  an  institution 
of  national  scope,  and  a  considerable  time  after. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  And  while  he  was  so  connected, 
was  not  he  rather  a  leading  figure  in  the  Federation? 

Mr.  Gompers:  He  was  for  two  years  its  president 
— President  of  the  National  Civic  Federation.  May 
I  suggest  at  'the  start  that  when  you  speak  of  the 
American  Federation  of  Labor  you  designate  its 
name,  and  when  you  speak  of  the  Civic  Federation 
you  designate  it  by  its  name,  and  you  do  not  confuse 
the  record  by  the  indefinite  word  "Federation"  as 
applied  equally  to  both. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  You  would  not  want  to  have  the 
American  Federation  of  Labor  mistaken  for  the  Na- 
tional Civic  Federation? 

Mr.  G0MPER3:  Oh,  I  would  not  want  by  your  in- 
directions and  insinuations  to  create  such  confusion. 

141 


Mk.  Hillquit:  Mr.  Goinpers,  were  not  and  arc 
not  some  of  the  leading  members  of  the  National 
Civic  Federation  very  well  known  capitalists  ? 

Mr.  Gompers:   Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Hillquit:    Will  you  name  some  of  them? 

Mr.  Gompers:  Mr,  Hanna.  Mr.  Seth  Low,  Mr. 
Andrew  Carnegie,  Mr.  Belmont 

Mr.  Hillquit:    Mr.  Schwab? 

Mr.  Gompers  :  No. 

Mr.  Pf illquit  :  Was  Mr.  Schwab  never  a  member 
of  the  National  Civic  Federation  ? 

Mr.  Gompers:  Not  to  my  knowledge — Mr.  Brown, 
of  the  New  York  Central  Railroad — and  I  think  Mr. 
Delano — no?  Mr.  Delano  says  he  was  not.  Oh, 
quite  a  number  of  large  employers  of  labor. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  And  the  object  of  the  Federation, 
among  other  things,  was  to  adjust  certain  labor  dis- 
putes, was  it  not? 

Mr.  Gompers:    It  was  not. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Doesn't  the  Civic  Federation  main- 
tain a  department  of  Mediation,  Arbitration,  and  other 
instrumentalities  for  the  adjustment  of  labor  disputes  .•' 

Mr.  Gompers:  It  has  a  department  of  Mediation. 
It  makes  no  efiforts  at  arbitration,  unless  called  upon 
to  do  so  voluntarily  by  both  sides.  It  has  brought  to- 
gether employers  and  workingmen  engaged  in  tremen- 
dously important  disputes,  who,  it  seemed,  could  not 
be  brought  together  for  the  purpose  of  dfscussing  their 
diverse  points  of  view  and  diverse  interests;  and  the 
result  has  been  that  agreements  have  been  reached 
between  large  bodies  of  workers  and  large  employers, 
the  terms  and  conditions  of  labor  being  improved,  to 
the  mutual  satisfaction — at  least  temporarily — to  the 
mutual  satisfaction  of  both  parties  to  the  dispute, 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Mr.  Gompers,  has  not  the  Civic 
Federation  also  taken  a  stand  on  various  other  prac- 
tical problems  of  the  labor  movement  and  labor  legis- 
lation ? 

142 


Miv  GoMPERs:  Never,  unless  it  was  adhered  to 
by  the  representatives  of  the  working  people. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Yes,  sir,  but  with  such  adherence 
the  Civic  Federation  has  undertaken  such  work,  has 
it  not? 

Mr.  GoMi'ERs:    Not  undertaken  it,  but  aided  in  it. 

Mr.  Hillquit:    Aided  in  it? 

Mr,  Gompers:  Aided  the  working  people  in  their 
organized  capacity  to  accomplish  it. 

Mr.  Hillquit  :  Foe  instance,  in  the  propaganda  for 
a  Workmen's  Compensation  Act? 

Mr.  Gompers:  Yes,  and  since  you  have  mentioned 
the  Workmen's  Compensation  Act,  it  is  due  to  the 
American  labor  movement  to  say  that  immediately 
upon  the  close  of  the  session  last  evening,  I  called  up 
on  the  'phone  Mr.  Daniel  Harris,  President  of  the 
New  York  State  Federation  of  Labor,  and  asked  him 
as  to  the  connection  of  yourself  and  the  Socialist 
Party  in  the  work  of  securing  a  Workmen's  Compen- 
sation Act  for  the  State  of  New  York,  and  he  in- 
formed me  and  showed  me  the  record,  that  the  bill 
which  you  advocated  was  one  which  was  impossible 
of  enactment  by  the  Legislature  of  the  State  of  New 
York.  It  required  specifically  that  there  should  be 
an  appropriation  of  one  million  dollars ;  that  a  mem- 
ber of  the  Commission  shall  be  a  Socialist,  and  it  con- 
tained such  other  provisions  as  were  not  only  impos- 
sible of  enactment,  but  repugnant  to  the  interests  of 
the  working  people  of  the  State  of  New  York ;  that 
they  could  not  and  would  not  stand  for  the  bill  and 
that,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  it  was  a  species  of  assistance 
such  as  we  find  in  Legislatures  and  which,  under  a 
pretense  of  kindliness  for  the  legislation  under  con- 
sideration will  kill  and  defeat  the  very  object  of  the 
bill ;  and  that  now  there  is  upon  the  statute  books  of 
the  State  of  New  York  the  best  and  most  compre- 
hensive and  generous  Workmen's  Compensation  Law 

143 


that  prevails  in  any  State  or  in  any  country  on  the 
face  of  the  globe. 

Chairman  Walsh  :  The  question  was,  in  this  case, 
Mr.  Gompers,  whether  or  not  the  National  Civic  Fed- 
eration advocated  the  last  Workmen's  Compensation 
Act.     Is  that  it? 

Mr.  Hillquit  :  A  Workmen's  Compensation  Act. 

Chairman  Walsh:    Did  it  or  not? 

Mr.  Gompers:  It  did. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Then,  Mr.  Gompers,  your  belief 
is  that  the  capitalists  who  hav«  come  into  the  Civic 
Federation  and  have  led  its  movements  for  solution  of 
certain  labor  problems,  have  done  so  for  the  benefit  of 
the  working  class? 

Mr.  Gompers:  Your  assumption  is  wrong  when 
you  say  that  they  have  led  the  National  Civic  Fed- 
eration. 

Mr.  Hillquit  :  They  have  participated  in  its  work, 
have  they? 

Mr.  Gompers:   Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Hillquit  :  Now,  Mr.  Gompers,  have  they  done 
so,  in  your  opinion,  for  the  benefit  of  organized  labor? 

M^.  Gompers:  I  think  they  have  done  it  in  an  at- 
tempt to  secure  some  improvement  in  the  conditions 
of  the  working  people.  I  should  say,  for  instance,  that 
in  the  matter  of  workmen's  compensation,  the  Civic 
Federation  had  a  committee  for  over  a  year  studying 
that  subject.  Among  them,  Mr.  Tecumseh  Sherman 
and  others.  They  had  experts  from  all  over  the  coun- 
try, and  they  formulated  a  bill.  When  the  New  York 
State  Federation  of  Labor  declared  that  it  would  not 
stand  for  that  bill,  the  Civic  Federation  immediately 
withdrew  it  from  consideration. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Mr.  Gompers,  I  thought  we  were 
agreed  on  brief  questions  and  brief  answers  for  the 
little  time  we  still  have.  Your  answer,  then,  is  that 
the  men  you  named  did  work  in  the  Civic  Federation, 
with  a  desire  to  help  labor  ? 

144 


Mr.  Gompers  :   I  did  not  say  that. 

Mr.  Hillquit:   What  did  you  say? 

Mr.  Gompers  :  I  said  they  endeavored,  in  so  far  as 
they  could,  to  help  in  the  formulation  of  a  bill  on 
workmen's  compensation  that  would  be  helpful  and 
beneficial. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Pardon  me.  I  am  not  referring 
to  workmen's  compensation  alone.  I  am  referring  to 
the  motives  of  the  capitalists  you  have  named  and  I 
am  asking  you  whether  you  believe  that  these  capi- 
talists have  been  giving  their  time  and  their  work 
of  the  Civic  Federation  for  the  benefit  of  the  working 
classes. 

Mr.  Gompers:  I  will  say  that  I  don't  know  their 
motives.  I  simply  know  their  acts,  and  I  say  that 
there  has  never  been  an  action  taken  by  the  National 
Civic  Federation  that  was  hostile  to  the  interests  of 
the  working  people. 

Mr.  Hillquit  :  You  have  stated  before,  Mr.  Gom- 
pers, that  you  believe  there  is  no  harmony  between  the 
interests  of  the  employing  classes  and  those  of  the 
workers,  and  that  you  believe  that  the  workers  must 
depend  upon  their  own  efforts  as  workers,  without 
the  interventions  of  "intellectuals,"  or  others,  to 
secure  improvements.  Now,  I  ask  you:  Do  you  be- 
lieve that  they  can  secure  such  improvements  through 
the  intervention  of  capitalists  of  the  type  that  you 
have  named  in  the  Civic  Federation? 

Mr.  Gompers:  First,  when  you  speak  of  the  "in- 
tellectuals" to  whom  I  referred,  I  say  that  I  mean 
the  intellectuals  who  undertake  to  dominate  our  move- 
ment. The  National  Civic  Federation  have  never  at- 
tempted to  dominate  the  affairs  of  our  movement. 
And,  second,  I  do  not  know  what  motives  they  have. 
I  simply  know  their  acts.  It  is  most  difficult  for  any 
one  to  determine  even  your  motive  or  my  motive.  I 
only  can  judge  of  people's  acts,  and  I  know  their  acts 

145 


in  the  Civic  Federation  have  never  been  hostile  to 
the  interests  of  the  working  people. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Then  you  think  it  is  perfectly 
proper  for  an  official  representative  of  the  American 
Federation  of  Labor  to  co-operate  with  well-known 
capitalist  employers  for  common  ends? 

Mr.  Gompers:  There  is  no  such  thing  as  that  upon 
which  your  question  is  predicated. 

Mr.  Hillquit  :  Answer  the  question,  whether  you 
think  it  proper  or  not. 

Mr.  Gomper,.s:  This  is  another  one  of  those  ques- 
tions the  answer  to  which  will  convict. 

Mr.  Hillquit:   It  might,  Mr.  Gompers. 

Mr.  Gompers:   Yes,  and  it  will. 

Mr.  Hillquit:   You  think  so? 

Mr.  Gompers:  Mr.  Hillquit,  I  may  not  be  quite  so 
clever,  but  at  least  I  shall  try  to  be  truthful  and  assume 
nothing  unless  I  have  a  basis  for  it.  There  is  no  such 
thing  as  co-operation  between  the  leaders  of  the  labor 
movement  and  the  leaders  of  the  National  Civic  Fed- 
eration. So  far  as  I  am  concerned,  I  can  go  anywhere 
where  men  assemble,  and  where  they  consider  ques- 
tions affecting  the  working  people.  1  can  meet  with 
them  and  bring  the  message  of  labor  to  them,  and 
argue  and  contend  as  best  I  can  with  them  for  the 
rights  of  the  working  people,  and  if  I  can  influence 
them  to  an  act  of  helpfulness  toward  any  one  thing  in 
which  the  working  people  are  interested,  I  have  ac- 
complished something.  I  have  never  felt  that  I  have 
come  away  with  my  skirts  besmirched,  or  my  char- 
acter impaired,  or  my  determination  to  toil  and 
struggle  for  the  working  people  impeded  or  impaired 
in  any  way. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  And  you  think  it  is  perfectly  feas- 
ible and  possible  for  a  labor  leader  to  influence  the 
large  employers  and  capitalists  in  the  National  Civic 
Federation  to  take  measures  for  the  benefit  of  organ- 
ized labor? 

146 


Mr.  Gompers:  That  is  not  the  question.  I  will  ap- 
peal to  the  devil  and  his  mother-in-law  to  help  labor 
if  labor  can  be  aided  in  that  way. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  And  will  you  co-operate  with  them? 

Chairman  Walsh  :  Please  proceed  to  some  other 
question. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Mr.  Gompers,  do  you  not  think 
there  is  a  contradiction  between  your  previous  state- 
ment to  the  effect  that  there  is  an  antagonism  between 
the  interests  of  employers  and  of  employes ;  that  the 
struggles  of  the  workers  are  directed  against  the 
employers,  and  that  those  struggles  must  be  con- 
ducted by  themselves  as  workers  and  your  activities 
in  the  National  Civic  Federation? 

Mr.  Gompers:  No.  As  a  matter  of  fact  the  Na- 
tional Civic  Federation  is  quite  as  emphatically  damned 
by  the  National  Association  of  Manufacturers  as  it 
is  by  you  and  your  associates,  because  the  National 
Association  of  Manufacturers  say  that  it  is  dominated 
by  the  labor  leaders. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Do  you  agree  with  them,  the  Na- 
tional Manufacturers'  Association? 

Mr.  Gom  pers  :  I  should  prefer  not  to  say.  I  would 
not  care  to  weaken  such  influence  as  T  might  have  with 
the  National  Civic  Federation  by  claiming  that  I  do 
dominate   it. 

Mr.  Hillquit  :  Mr.  Gompers,  you  are  familiar  with 
the  trade  union  movement  in  other  countries  of  the 
world  ? 

Mr.  Gompei^:   Yes,  sir,  fairly  well. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Can  you  name  a  single  instance  iii 
any  country  of  the  world  where  representatives  of 
the  trade  union  movement  have  any  affiliation  similar 
to  that  existing  between  some  of  the  leaders  of  the 
American  Federation  of  Labor  and  the  National  Civic 
Federation  ? 

Mr.  Gompers:  As  a  matter  of  fact,  there  is  no  such 
affiliation  here  as  that  which  you  refer  to. 

147 


Mr.  Hillquit:  You  hold  membership  in  the  Na- 
tional Civic  Federation? 

Mr.  Gompers  :  I  do  not,  sir ;  there  is  no  such  thing 
as  membership. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Aren't  you  an  officer  of  the  Civic 
Federation  ? 

Mr.  Gompers:   I  am. 

Mr.  Hillquit:    But  not  a  member? 

Mr.  Gompers:  There  is  no  such  thing.  It  is  a 
voluntary  association  of  men  who  are  willing  to  give 
aid  or  to  secure  aid.  They  simply  attend.  The  officers 
are  simply  a  matter  of  administrative — what  is  it  they 
perform  ? 

Mr.  Hillquit  :  Whatever  it  is.  Does  anybody  ap- 
point or  elect  the  officers  of  the  National  Civic  Fed- 
eration ? 

Mr.  Gompers:  Those  who  may  come  to  the  annual 
meetings. 

Mr.  Hillquit:   Those  who  happen  to  come  in? 

Mr.  Gomper^:   Yes. 

Mr.  Hillquit:    And  they  elect? 

Mr.  Gompers:    Yes. 

Mr.  Hillquit:    And  you  are  such  elected  officer? 

Mr.  Gompers:    Yes. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  I  would  like  to  ask  whether  you 
know  any  analogous  example  anywhere  in  the  world 
of  where  the  officers  of  a  national  labor  movement 
hold  office  in  a  body  similar  to  the  National  Civic 
Federation  ? 

Mr.  Gompers:   No,  that  is  impossible. 

Mr.  Hillquit:    Of  course. 

Mr.  Gompers  :  As  a  matter  of  fact,  there  isn't  any 
capitalist — say,  for  instance — in  Germany,  who  would 
condescend  to  meet  with  a  representative  of  labor. 
And  yet,  let  me  call  your  attention  to  this  fact  that, 
in  the  strike  of  the  building  trades  in  Berlin  which, 
subsequently,  extended  all  through  Germany  two  years 
ago,  a  Board  of  Arbitration  was  selected,  and  there 

148 


were  capitalists  and  public  officials  on  it,  and  not  one 
labor  man. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Is  that  the  closest  analog  to  the 
National  Civic  Federation  you  can  think  of? 

Mr.  Gompers:  No.  In  England,  when  the  coal 
strike  occurred  two  years  ago,  there  were  conferences, 
associated  efforts,  between  the  coal  miners,  the  mine 
owners  and  representatives  of  what  you  would  tenn 
the  capitalistic  government. 

Mr,  Hillquit:   Yes;  those  are  all  special  cases  of 
temporary  co-operation,  but  not  definite,  permanent  ' 
organizations,  are  they? 

Mr.  Gompers:  All  for  a  definite  purpose,  and  the 
only  way  m  which  I  am  engaged  in  any  work  of  the 
Civic  Federation  is  in  cases  of  that  character. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  You  say  you  are  familiar  with  the 
trade  movement  abroad.  Will  you  please  state  which 
movement  in  the  European  countries  you  consider 
the  strongest? 

Mr.  Gomper^:    Strongest  in  numbers,  you  mean? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  In  numbers,  things  accomplished, 
and  everything  else  that  goes  to  make  up  success? 

Mr.  Gompers:   In  Great  Britain? 

Mr.  Hillquit:   And  next  to  Great  Britain? 

Mr.  Gompers:    Germany? 

Mr.  Hillquit:    Then? 

Mr.  Gk)MPERs:  I  think  that  I  might  say,  like  the 
boy,  "there  ain't  no  then." 

Mr.  Hillquit  :   How  about  Austria  ? 

Mr.  Gompers:  That  is  very  poorly  organized. 

Mr.  Hillquit:    How  about  Belgium? 

Mr.  Gompers:   Poorer  organized. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  And  how  about  the  Scandinavian 
countries,  Sweden,  Norway  and  Denmark? 

Mr.  Gompers:  They  were  better  organized  before 
their  general  strike,  about  five  years  ago.  That  strike 
has  weakened  the  movement  there  very  materially. 

Mr.  Hillquit:    Now,  with  respect  to  actual  ac- 

149 


complishmcnt,  the  attainment  of  (lefinite  measures  of 
relief,  which  would  you  place  ahead  of  the  rest? 

Mr^  Gompers:   Which  measures  of  relief? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  I  mean  reform  measures  in  the 
nature  of  labor  legislation,  social  insurance  and  similar 
measures  ? 

Mr.  Gompers:  I  would  say  Germany.  Next  comes 
England. 

Mr.  Hillquit  :  Yes,  then  would  you  take  Belgium  ? 

Mr.  Gompers:   No. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  What  would  you  take  next? 

Mr.  Gompers:    I  would  take  Austria. 

Mr.   Hillquit:    And  then? 

Mr.  Gompers:    Belgium. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Now,  Mr.  Gompers,  do  you  know 
the  general  political  affiliations,  attainments  and  prac- 
tices of  the  German  trade  union  movement? 

Mr.  Gompers:   I  do,  sir. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Are  the  German  trade  unionists 
pretty  closely  allied  to  the  Socialist  Party  of  Germany  ? 

Mr.  Gompers:  They  are  in  their  membership,  and 
there  is  a  sort  of  a  common  work,  too.  But  this,  too, 
must  be  borne  in  mind  in  regard  to  Germany :  The 
trade  unions  of  Germany  have  absolutely  no  right  of 
lawful  political  activity.  I  have  said,  Mr.  Hillquit, 
that  if  I  were  in  Germany,  I  would  belong  to  the  So- 
cialist Party,  not  because  I  would  give  adhesion  to  the 
philosophy  of  Socialism,  but  because  it  is  the  only  pro- 
testing democratic  party  in  Germany. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  And,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  Mr. 
Gompers,  the  large  bulk  of  trade  unionists  in  Germany 
supports  the  candidates  of  the  Socialist  Party  in  elec- 
tions ? 

Mr.  Gomper,s:   As  a  rule  that  is  true. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  And  also  a  number  of  prominent 
trade  union  leaders  are  Socialist  members  of  Parlia- 
ment, including  the  International  Trade  Union  Sec- 
retary, Karl  Legien? 

150 


Mr.  Gompers:  Yes.  You  know  that  Mr.  Legien 
belongs  to  the  "Revisionists"  in  the  Socialist  Party, 
or  the  Bernstein  School,  which  recognizes  the  abso- 
lute economic  independence  of  the  trade  union  move- 
ment from  the  political  Socialist  Party. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Yes,  but  that  has  nothing  to  do 
with  the  case. 

Mr.  Gompers  :   That  is  what  you  may  think. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Well,  let's  proceed.  Mr.  Legien 
is  a  member  in  good  standing  of  the  Socialist  Party, 
and  also  a  leader  in  the  trade  labor  movement.  Do 
you  know  the  political  activity  of  the  trade  unionists 
in  England? 

Mr.  Gompers:   I  do.  ' 

Mr.  Hillquit:   How  does  it  express  itself? 

Mr.  Gompers:    In  an  independent  political  party. 

Mr.  Hillquit:   Known  as  the  Labor  Party? 

Miu  Gompers:    Labor  Party. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  In  which  the  Socialist  organiza- 
tion known  as  the  Independent  Labor  Party,  and  an- 
other Socialist  organization  known  as  the  Fabian  So- 
city,  are  officially  represented  ?    Is  that  correct  ? 

Mr.  Gompers:  I  think  so,  yes,  sir. 

Mi^.  Hillquit:  And  do  you  know  the  political 
activity  of  the  workers  in  Belgium? 

Mr.  Gompers:  Belgium  is  fairly  representative  of 
the  political  action  of  the  workers.  As  a  matter  of 
fact,  the  Socialists  of  Brussels  dominate  the  offices 
and  dominate  whatever  of  the  labor  movement  there 
is  in  Belgium.  That,  as  a  consequence,  has  left  the 
Belgium  workmen  the  lowest  in  Europe  in  economic 
conditions.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  wherever  the  work- 
men are  most  active  politically,  there  they  lose  sight 
of  their  economic  interests,  believing  that  by  casting 
their  vote  once  a  year  they  can  secure  remedial  legis- 
lation that  will  offset  the  work  of  trade  unionism. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Mr.  Gompers,  isn't  it  a  fact  that 
the  American  Federation  of  Labor  is  the  only  large 

151 


national  body  of  organized  workers  which  has  no  inde- 
pendent political  policy,  party,  organization  or  affilia- 
tion of  its  own  ? 

Mr.  Gompers:  It  is  improper  to  place  the  Amer- 
ican Federation  of  Labor  in  that  position,  because  it 
has  an  independent  political  policy — a  policy  so  politi- 
cally independent  that  it  is  independent  of  the  Socialist 
Party,  too.  It  looks  to  achievements  rather  than  the 
instrumentality  of  achievement,  and  we  have  achieved 
in  the  American  labor  movement  more  real  better- 
ment for  the  working  people  than  has  been  accom- 
plished by  any  other  labor  movement  in  the  world. 
,  Chairman  Walsh  :  Mr.  Hillquit,  this  is  intensely 
interesting  to'me,  as  I  know  it  is  to  the  balance  of  the 
Commission,  but  we  must  bring  this  to  a  close,  and  so 
I  will,  on  behalf  of  the  Commission,  thank  you  very 
much  for  your  contribution  to  our  work,  and  will  bring 
it  to  a  close. 

Mr.  Hillquit:    Well,  I  understand,  I  will  have  a 
chance 

Chairman  Walsh  :    Yes,  you  may  be  put  on  in 
rebuttal. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Thank  you. 


152 


FIFTH    SESSION. 
Socialism  and  Trade  Unionism 

Chairman  Walsh  :  Please  come  to  order.  Call 
your  next  witness,  Mr.  Thompson. 

Max  S.  Hayes,  called  as  a  witness,  testified  as 
follows : 

Mr.  Tohmpson  :  Mr.  Hayes,  will  you  please  give 
us  your  name,  address  and  your  occupation? 

Mr.  Hayes  :  Max  S.  Hayes,  979,  Parker  Drive,- 
Cleveland,  Ohio.  I  am  editor  of  the  "Cleveland  Citi- 
zen," organizer  for  the  National  Typographical  L^nion, 
National  Committeeman  from  Ohio  for  the  Socialist 
Party,  and  I  hold  a  few  other  similar  positions. 

Mr,  Thompson:  Then,  from  your  statement,  Mr. 
Hayes,  we  are  to  understand  that  you  are  a  member 
of  a  union  affiliated  with  the  American  Federation  of 
Labor,  and  also  you  are  a  member  of  the  Socialist 
Party  ? 

Mr.  Hayes:   Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Thompson:  And  have  been  an  organizer  for 
both  in  the  past? 

Mr.  Hayes:   Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Thompson  :  Mr.  Hayes,  did  you  hear  the  tes- 
timony which  was  given  here  yesterday  by  Mr. 
Gompers  ? 

Mi^.  Hayes:   I  did. 

Mr.  Thompson  :  I  would  like  to  have  you  state,  as 
you  see  it,  the  position  occupied  by  the  American  Fed- 
eration of  Labor,  its  aims  and  objects,  and  the  position 
occupied  by  the  Socialist  Party  and  its  aims  and  ob- 

153 


jects;  wherein  they  agree  and  in  what  respect  they 
diflfer? 

Mr.  Hayes:  Well,  in  a  general  way,  the  aims  and 
objects  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor,  so  far 
as  its  political  and  social  demands  are  concerned,  are 
quite  similar  to  those  contained  in  the  "Immediate 
Demands"  of  the  platform  of  the  Socialist  Party. 
Holding  a  sort  of  dual  ]x)sition  in  the  two  organiza- 
tions and  having  attended  the  conventions  of  the 
American  Federation  of  Labor  during  the  last  fifteen 
years  as  a  delegate.  I  have  followed  the  trend  quite 
closely  and,  naturally,  have  gained  some  convictions 
upon  the  principles  upon  which  both  organizations 
are  founded.  I  want  it  understood  that  I  am  not  here 
speaking  as  a  representative  of  either  organization.  I 
have  not  been  delegated  by  the  Socialist  Party,  nor 
by  the  American  Federation  of  Labor,  to  express  the 
views  of  their  memberships.  I  give  my  own  impres- 
sions. In  other  words.  I  do  not  wish  to  pose  as  a 
labor  leader  or  a  Socialist  leader.  I  would  prefer  to  be 
classified  as  an  ordinary  labor  and  Socialist  agitator. 
I  sometimes  become  provoked  when  I  am  referred  to 
as  a  labor  leader  or  a  Socialist  leader  because  my  im- 
pression of  both  movements  is  that  they  lead  them- 
selves largely,  but  have  spokesmen,  advocates,  agita- 
tors, etc.  In  my  capacity  as  a  delegate  to  the  Amer- 
ican Federation  of  Labor,  and  as  a  member  of  the 
Socialist  Party,  as  editor  of  the  Citizen  for  the  last 
twenty  years,  as  a  participant  in  the  trade  union 
movement  for  thirty  years,  and  the  Socialist  move- 
ment for  about  19  years,  I  have  come  to  the  conclu- 
sion that  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  is  the 
logical  economic  organization  for  this  country.  I  have 
no  sympathy  with  the  so-called  Industrial  Workers 
of  the  World,  any  more  than  I  had  for  the  Socialist 
Trade  and  Labor  Alliance  which  was  organized  prior 
to  the  I.  W.  W.,  or  with  the  American  Labor  Union. 
I  do  not  agree  with  Mr.  Debs  on  the  one  hand  in  his 

154 


views  as  to  the  form  of  organization  which  the  labor 
movement  should  take  on  the  industrial  field.  Nor  do 
I  agree  with  Brother  Sam  Gompers  on  the  other  hand, 
in  his  opposition  to  the  Socialist  movement  or  to  the 
progressive  demands  made  by  the  Socialist  movement. 

There  is  not  the  difference  between  the  member- 
ship of  the  Socialist  Party  and  the  membership  of  the 
trade  unions  that  people  are  frequently  led  to  believe 
exists,  because  of  the  contentions,  the  rivalries,  the 
jealousies  or  the  animosities  that  may  exist  between 
the  so-called  leaders  of  these  movements.  I  do  not 
wish  to  deal  particularly  with  individuals,  because,  in 
the  long  run,  there  is  not  very  much  gained  by  criticis- 
ing individuals.  When  I  speak  of  individuals  I  want 
it  understood  that  I  am  dealing  with  their  views,  with 
their  qualities.  Whatever  antipathy  may  exist  be- 
tween Mr.  Debs  and  Mr.  Gompers  as  well  known  rep- 
resentatives of  the  organizations  with  which  they  are 
affiliated,  does  not  exist  among  the  rank  and  file.     ' 

To  the  uninformed  individual,  it  might  appear 
that  there  is  a  sort  of  gulf,  an  inseparable  barrier,  be- 
tween the  Socialist  organization  on  the  one  side,  and 
the  labor  movement  on  the  industrial  field  on  the  other 
side. 

Now,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the  very  large  bulk  of  the 
membership,  a  majority  I  would  say,  of  the  Socialist 
Party,  is  composed  of  trade  unionists.  I  can  speak 
from  experience,  when  I  say  that.  As  representative 
of  the  Typographical  Union,  I  have  often  been  very 
materially  assisted  by  Socialist  organizations.  For. 
instance,  in  cities  and  towns  in  the  Middle  West,  where 
we  had  no  local  organization,  and  where  there  ap- 
peared to  be  difficulty  in  getting  the  printers  to  form 
a  Union  and  to  affiliate  with  the  International  or- 
ganization, I  have  written  letters  to  members  of  So- 
cialist locals  and  enlisted  their  co-operation  in  inter- 
esting printers  in  the  subject  of  organization.     Later 

155 


followed  up  the  correspondence  by  a  personal  visit, 
with  the  result  that  we  formed  a  union. 

That  is  my  individual  experience.  And,  un- 
doubtedly, many  International  Organizers — I  am  mak- 
ing a  distinction  between  International  organizers  and 
the  paid  organizers  of  the  American  Federation  of 
Labor,  those  directly  connected  with  headquarters  in 
Washington,  have  been  assisted  by  Socialist  organiza- 
tions in  the  smaller  towns.  We  have  Socialist  or- 
ganizations in  hundreds  of  towns  where  there  are 
no  unions,  and  they  are  often  used  for  the  purpose 
of  securing  the  formation  of  trade  unions.  T  m.ight 
sit  here  and  explain  for  an  hour  or  more  the  co-opera- 
tion that  exists  between  the  memberships  of  the  So- 
cialist Party  and  the  labor  unions,  particularly  in  the 
smaller  towns  of  the  country. 

Mr.  Thompson  :  May  I  interrupt  you  at  this 
point  ? 

Mr.   Hayes:    Yes,   sir. 

Mr.  Thompson:  Is  it  known  in  the  Socialist 
Party  that  you  are  a  member  of  the  A.  F.  of  L.  ? 

Mr.  Hayes:    Oh,  certainly. 

Mr.  Thompson  :  Has  there  ever  been  any  -jbiec- 
tion  to  your  membership  in  the  A.  F.  of  L.  by  the 
Socialist  Party? 

Mr.  Hayes:   Absolutely  none. 

Mr.  Thompson  :  Has  there  ever  been  any  objection 
by  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  to  your  mem- 
bership and  participation  as  an  official  in  the  Socialist 
Party? 

Mr.  Hayes:  None  whatsoever. 

Mr.  Thompson:  Does  that  condition  which  exists 
with  reference  to  you  exist  with  reference  to  thou- 
sands of  other  workers  ? 

Mr.  Hayes:   It  does. 

Mr.  Thompson  :  Is  there  a  fair  percentage  of  mem- 
bership in  the  American  Federation  of  Labor,  in  your 
opinion,  who  are  Socialists,  avowedly  such? 

156 


Mr.  Hayes:  Yes,  sir.  There  is  a  very  large  per- 
centage. I  am  not  able  to  give  you  exact  figures, 
but  you  can  form  some  opinion  from  the  convention 
proceedings.  If  you  will  follow  the  A.  F.  of  L.  pro- 
ceedings— and  those  who  are  delegates  to  the  con- 
ventions of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  know 
it — you  will  find  that  there  is  a  steady  increase  in  the 
number  of  representatives  from  the  National  unions, 
who  are  also  Socialists, 

Take  the  miners,  just  as  an  illustration.  A  very 
large  percentage  of  the  United  Mine  Workers  to-day 
are  Socialists.  That  is  particularly  true  in  the  Middle 
West,  in  Ohio,  Indiana  and  Illinois.  Some  of  the 
mining  towns  in  those  states  are  almost  solidly  So- 
cialist, as  is  demonstrated  by  the  votes  cast  in  the 
elections  of  delegates  to  their  national  conventions, 
usually  held  in  Indianapolis.  The  same  is  true  of  the 
brewery  workers,  the  machinists,  and  many  other 
trades. 

No  objection  has  ever  been  raised  by  the  Socialist 
Party.  In  fact  the  Socialist  Party,  the  Socialist  press 
and  the  prominent  Socialists  who  do  not  happen  to  be 
in  a  position  where  they  themselves  can  affiliate  with 
trade  unions,  have  advised  and  constantly  insisted  that 
the  rank  and  file  of  the  Socialist  membership,  when- 
ever eligible,  should  join  trade  unions  and  assist  in 
the  struggles  on  the  industrial  field. 

Mr.  Thompson:  Mr.  Hayes,  you  have  said  that 
you  believe  that  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  is 
the  logical  leader  of  the  working  class  in  this  country  ? 

Mr.  Hayes:  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Thompson:  And,  for  that  reason,  you  object 
to  the  Industrial  Workers  of  the  World,  to  the  So- 
cialist Labor  Party,  to  the  American  Labor  Union, 
and  to  any  other  organization  which  undertakes  to 
divide  the  field.    Am  I  correct  in  that  statement? 

Mr.  Hayes  r  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Thompson:   Why,    then,    do   you    co-operate 

157 


with  the  Socialist  Party,  and  what  is  the  reason  that 
makes  these  two  bodies,  the  American  Federation  of 
Labor,  and  the  Socialist  Party,  capable  of  existing 
side  by  side  and  not  dividing  that  field? 

Mr,.  Hayes:  I  am  a  member  of  the  trade  union 
movement,  because  it  is  the  bread  and  butter  organiza- 
tion. It  is  a  movement  that  meets  problems  on  the 
industrial  field,  as  has  been  stated  by  President  Gom- 
pers,  from  day  to  day,  in  reducing  hours  of  labor, 
raising  wages,  gaining  more  decent  working  condi- 
tions in  shops,  mines  and  on  the  railroads  of  the 
country.  That  is  an  absolute  necessity.  But  I  recog- 
nize the  limitations  of  the  trade  union  movement,  and 
I  have  come  to  the  conclusion  that  it  is  absolutely 
necessary  to  also  have  a  political  expression  of  the 
wants  and  desires  of  the  working  class  in  order  to 
place  ourselves  in  a  position  of  equality  in  waging 
the  contest  with  the  capitalists,  who  organize  politi- 
cally and  industrially  as  well. 

I  recall  when  some  of  the  ultra-conservatives  in 
the  American  Federation  of  Labor  opposed  any  and 
every  form  of  political  action,  contending  what  the 
Industrial  Workers  of  the  World  now  claim :  That 
the  workers  can  secure  by  direct  action  without  the 
assistance  of  governmental  machinery  whatever  de- 
mands they  may  make;  that  they  can  achieve  by  purely 
economic  action,  a  condition  where  they  will  be  able 
to  secure  the  full  product  of  their  toil. 

We  had,  for  instance,  in  the  Kansas  City  convention 
in  1898,  again  in  the  Detroit  convention,  in  the  Louis- 
ville convention,  debated  those  points,  and  prominent 
members  and  officers  of  the  American  Federation  of 
Labor  took  the  position  that  the  labor  movement 
should  keep  its  hands  off  political  manoeuvering  in  its 
efforts  to  gain  advantages. 

But  there  has  been  a  sort  of  a  steady  evolution  even 
among  those  conservatives  to  the  extent  that  they 
now  operate  through  what  they  call  a  Labor  Represen- 

158 


tative  Committee,  adopting  the  name  of  the  Labor 
Representative  Committee  of  Great  Britain.  That  is 
merely  the  name,  however.  There  were,  I  beheve, 
three  individuals  selected  at  the  conference  in  Wash- 
ington to  steer  the  labor  movement  along  political 
lines,  whereas  in  Great  Britain  the  Labor  Representa- 
tive Committee  developed  into  the  Labor  Party,  with 
which  the  Independent  Labor  Party  of  which  Keir 
Hardy  is  one  of  the  prominent  spokesmen,  is  affili- 
ated, and  with  which  the  British  Socialist  Party  will 
undoubtedly  affiliate  within  the  next  few  months. 
There  is  a  referendum  vote  on  now  on  that  very  propo- 
sition. So  that  there  will  be  a  combination  in  Great 
Britain  of  those  three  or  four  parties,  including  the 
Fabian  Society. 

And  now,  do  you  want  to  ask  questions  ? 

Mr.  Thompson  :  I  want  to  ask  you  directly,  isn't 
it  the  fact  to-day  that  the  American  Federation  of 
Labor  is  taking  a  very  direct  interest  in  legislation 
affecting  the  welfare  of  the  workingmen  of  this 
country  ? 

Mr.  Hayes:  Yes,  that  is  what  I  intended  to  de- 
velop, to  show  that  the  officers  of  the  American  Fed- 
eration of  Labor  have  advocated  political  action  and 
the  election  of  members  to  Congress  who  are  now 
classified  as  a  Labor  Group,  in  a  loose  manner.  Prac- 
tically every  member  of  the  Labor  Group,  however, 
maintains  his  adherence  and  responsiblity  to  his  politi- 
cal party.  Thus,  for  instance,  Secretary  of  Labor 
Wilson  made  the  public  statement  that  he  cannot  and 
will  not  be  regarded  as  a  labor  representative.  He 
.was  elected  as  a  Democrat  and,  logically,  affiliated  him- 
self with  his  Party  in  Congress.  He  is,  however,  a 
labor  man.  Now,  there  comes  the  division  in  the 
labor  movement.  The  conservative  elements  are  in- 
clined to  the  view  that  more  can  be  accomplished  bv 
acting  through  the  old  parties  in  the  election  of  mem- 
bers  to   Congress,  while   the  radical   elements,   v/ith 

159 


which  I  generally  affiliate  in  the  American  Federation 
conventions,  insist  that  the  only  logical,  definite  and 
substantial  manner  to  make  progress  is  through  a 
Party  that  is  composed  wholly  and  solely  of  labor 
men.  That  is,  we  contend  that  it  is  essential  that  we 
be  as  conscious  of  our  solidarity  as  workers  on  the 
political  field  as  we  are  on  the  industrial  field.  We 
maintain  that  it  is  an  absurdity  to  make  demands  upon 
the  industrial  field  from  the  employing  class  and  tiien 
turn  around  and  elect  attorneys  to  Congress  and  to 
the  State  Legislatures,  who  are  dominated,  as  lias 
been  proven  in  any  number  of  investigations,  by  large 
corporations  and,  naturally,  side  with  the  employers 
when  it  comes  to  a  crisis,  and  make  it  difficult  to 
secure  the  enactment  of  legislation  which  we  have 
been  demanding  for  many  years,  such  as'  the  curbing 
of  the  injunction  curse  in  labor  controversies,  amend- 
ing the  Sherman  Law,  and  so  on.  It  is  difficult  to 
force  those  measures  through  the  National  Congress 
or  the  State  Legislatures,  because  of  the  fact  that 
these  attorneys  and  capitalists,  manufacturers,  mer- 
chants, etc.,  understand  their  class  interest  much  bet- 
ter than  the  workers  understand  their  class  interest. 
Hence,  in  every  contest  where  the  lines  are  sharply 
drawn,  the  capitalist  representatives  usually  are  op- 
posed to  the  enactment  of  remedial  legislation  for 
labor.  In  this  country  we  have  had  a  tremendous 
advantage  over  the  workers  in  Europe,  who  were 
mentioned  yesterday.  The  workers  in  Europe  liave 
had  more  to  contend  with  than  we  have  had  in  this 
country.  They  have  been  held  in  a  condition  of  in- 
dustrial slavery  for  centuries,  from  the  feudal  state 
down  to  the  present  capitalist  system  of  industry.  The 
workers  in  Europe  have  found  the  class  lines  drawn 
against  them,  the  lines  of  privilege.  The  church  and 
State  were  allied  against  them.  Here  we  have  been 
practically  free  and  yet  the  workers  are  paying  abso- 

160 


lutely  no  attention  to  their  political  power  so  far  as 
going  along  independent  lines  is  concerned. 

Mr.  Thompson:  Mr.  Hayes,  did  I  understand  you 
correctly  that  one  of  the  lines  of  demarcation  between 
the  American  Federation  of  Labor  and  the  Socialist 
Party  is  this:  That  in  matters  of  Legislation  the 
American  Federation  of  Labor  will  affiliate  indis- 
criminately with  any  other  Party  if  it  may  be  able  to 
carry  its  purposes,  whereas  the  Socialist  Party  be- 
lieves in  organizing  a  Party  of  its  own  to  stand  for 
whatever  it  advocates? 

Mr.   Hayes:    Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Thompson  :  Now,  in  regard  to  the  concrete 
or  present  industrial  situation,  the  Socialist  Party  be- 
lieves in  letting  that  field  lie  in  the  hands  of  the  Amer- 
ican Federation  of  Labor  to  adjust  the  present-day 
working  hours,  wages  and  conditions? 

Mr.   Hayes:    Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Thompson:  Whereas,  they  look  forward  to  a 
programme  which  deals  more  particularly  with  the 
philosophy  or  theory  of  what  Society  should  be  ulti- 
mately? 

Mr.  Hayes:  In  the  political  sense,  yes. 

Mr.  Thompson:   That  is  correct? 

Mr.  Hayes:    Yes. 

Mr.  Thompson:  Now,  Mr.  Hayes,  coming  down 
to  one  or  two  concrete  questions.  Mr.  Gompers  stated 
yesterday,  if  I  remember  it  rightly,  that  the  American 
Federation  of  Labor  would  take  a  stand  against  the 
limitation  of  the  hours  of  work,  by  legislation.  Was 
that  his  personal  opinion  or  is  that  the  general  view  of 
the  American  Federation  of  Labor  on  that  subject? 

Mr.  Hayes:  Well,  it  certainly  is  his  personal 
opinion.  I  don't  know  of  any  instance,  nationally  or 
in  any  State,  where  there  has  been  any  opposition 
from  the  trades  unions  against  the  enactment  of  an 
eight-hour  law.  In  fact,  it  has  been  the  cardinal  prin- 
ciple of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  to  demand 

161 


the  enactment  of  an  eight-hour  law  to  affect  not  only 
the  workers  directly  employed  by  Uncle  Sam,  but  those 
who  are  furnishing  supplies  to  the  United  States 
Government.  We  have  the  same  law  in  States.  I  do 
not  know  hut  what  Mr.  Gompers  was  misunderstood 
somewhat. 

Commissioner  O'Connell:  That  Certainly  could 
not  have  been  Mr.  Gompers'  position  yesterday. 

Mr.  Hayes:  As  I  understand  Mr.  Gompers'  con- 
tention against  the  enactment  of  the  eight-hour  law, 
it  was  that  he  would  oppose  its  application  to  business 
as  a  whole,  to  private  business? 

Commissioner  O'Connell:    Yes/ 

Mr.  Hayes:  Now,  I  entirely  disagree  with  Mr. 
Gompers  upon  that  point.  I  don't  believe  there  are 
any  considerable  number  of  unions,  none  at  least  that 
I  can  call  to  mind,  that  would  oppose  a  general  national 
sweeping  eight-hour  law  to  extend  to  every  man, 
woman  and  child  in  the  country  engaged  in  indus- 
trial work,  any  more  than  they  would  on  the  minimum 
wage  question. 

Chairman  Walsh  :  The  matter  is  a  little  confused 
ii)  my  mind,  so  that  when  Mr.  Gompers  comes  back 
on  the  stand  he  should  be  asked  the  question  by  coun- 
sel straight  out.  Then  we  will  not  need  to  go  into 
the  difference,  if  any,  of  the  recollection  of  the  Com- 
mission on  the  matter.  Now,  as  I  take  it,  the  ques- 
tion has  been  fully  answered,  that  Mr.  Haves  is  in 
favor  of  legislation  limiting  the  hour.,  of  labor  of 
the  workers  wherever  it  comes  from,  and  that  his 
observation  has  been  that  the  American  Federation 
of  Labor  likewise  has  taken  that  position. 

Mr.  Hayes  :  No,  the  American  Federation  of  Labor 
has  not,  to  my  knowledge,  gone  on  record  in  favor 
of  a  general  eight-hour  law  to  be  enacted  by  the 
National  or  State  government  covering  the  entire  in- 
dustrial field,  but  merely  so  far  as  it  related  fo  em- 
ployes of  the  Government,  National,  State  and  local. 

162 


Mr.  Thompson:  Is  the  American  Federation  of 
Labor  committed  to  a  programme  of  hostility  to  legis- 
lation in  favor  of  the  working  classes? 

Mr,.  Hayes  :  No,  sir,  it  is  not. 

Mr.  Thompson  :  As  a  member  of  the  American 
Federation  of  Labor  you  would  say  that  the  natural 
tendency  of  that  body  would  be  to  sympathize  with 
and  to  help  the  passage  of  legislation  leading  to  the 
improvement  of  the  condition  of  the  working  class? 

Mr.  Hayes:  Oh,  yes,  certainly.  The  American 
Federation  of  Labor  has  always  stood  behind  any- 
thing in  the  nature  of  progressive  legislation. 

Mr.  Thompson  :  In  other  words,  in  the  political 
field  as  well  as  in  the  industrial  field  the  American 
Federation  of  Labor  stands  for  progressive  pro- 
grammes so  far  as  the  workingman's  interests  are 
concerned;  is  that  correct? 

Mr.  Hayes:  Yes,  sir.  The  only  objection  I  have 
is  that  it  does  not  go  far  enough. 

Mr.  Thompson  :  I  understand  that.  I  just  want 
to  get  the  general  lines  laid  down  here  so  that  the 
Commission  may  understand  it.  Now,  Mr.  Hayes, 
with  reference  to  the  limitations,  you  heard  Mr.  Gom- 
pers  say  that  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  places 
no  limit  on  the  demands  it  may  make  from  time  to 
time  with  reference  to  wages  or  hours,  or  rather,  with 
reference  to  getting  a  larger  share  or,  perhaps,  the 
whole  share  of  the  product ;  is  that  correct  ? 

Mr.  Hayes  :  Yes,  sir.  I  believe  he  expressed  the 
general  opinion.  In  fact,  I  was  very  pleased  to  hear 
him  make  that  admission. 

Mr.  Thompson  :  Would  not  that  be  the  natural 
position  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor?  It 
must  be  that  position. 

Mr.  Hayes:  I  cannot  see  how  it  could  take  any 
other  position  if  the  thing  is  put  up  squarely  to  the 
membership. 

163 


Mr.  Thompson  :  Mr.  Chairman,  I  am  through  with 
the  witness. 

Chairman  Walsh  :  Any  questions  ? 

Commissioner  Garretson  :  Yes;  I  would  hke  to 
ask  Mr.  Hayes  a  question  or  two.  It  may  not  have  a 
direct  bearing  on  the  testimony,  but  I  want  to  get  an 
understanding  myself  of  a  certain  phase  here,  be- 
cause you  take  a  somewhat  different  ground  from  any 
exponent  of  your  faith  that  I  have  seen.  Bear  in 
mind,  I  am  not  affiliated  with  either  side,  the  A.  F 
of  L.  or  the  Socialist  Party.  Do  I  understand  that 
you  regard  the  trade  union  movement  or,  to  narrow 
it  somewhat,  the  x\merican  Federation  of  Labor,  as 
the  proper  form  of  machinery  for  realizing  such  bene- 
fits as  can  be  gained  for  the  workers  from  day  to  day 
without  waiting  for  the  success  of  this  or  that  im- 
provement that  might  be  brought  about  by  political 
action,  while  at  the  same  time,  in  your  character  as  a 
citizen, ,  you  believe  that  the  Socialist  Party  is  the 
proper  form  of  the  expression  of  your  legislative  be- 
liefs and  the  means  for  securing  the  same?  Am  I 
interpreting  your  meaning  right  or  not? 

Mr.  Hayes  :  Substantially.  I  would  like  to  amplify 
that  to  some  extent.  I  regard  the  American  Federa- 
tion of  Labor  the  legitimate,  recognized,  organized 
industrial  movement  on  this  continent.  It  is  not  per- 
fect. But  my  contention  is  that  the  American  Fed- 
eration of  Labor  is  broadening  from  the  purely  craft 
or  trade  form  of  organization  into  an  industrial  fonn. 
There  are  at  least  a  dozen  international  unions  affili- 
ated with  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  that  are 
industrial  in  their  character, — as  the  Miners,  the 
Brewery  Workers  and  other  bodies.  The  Machinists 
only  recently  broadened  out.  They  are  now  talking 
about  merging  three  of  the  garment  working  trades 
into  one  complete  union.  And  right  on  that  point  I 
take  issue  with  the  accusations  made  by  representa- 
tives of  the  I.  W.  W.    They  laid  such  particular  «'m- 

164 


phasis  upon  this  point  that  it  appealed  in  a  large 
measure  to  many  Socialists  the  country  over,. I  mean 
the  charge  that  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  had 
neglected  the  so-called  common  labor.  I  happened  to 
have  a  debate  with  a  representative  of  the  I.  W.  W. 
on  this  subject  in  Seattle  last  November,  and  chal- 
lenged him  to  produce  the  proofs  of  this  accusation. 
And  I  showed  by  the  records  and  the  figures,  wliich 
I  expected  President  Gompers  to  submit  to  the  Com- 
mission yesterday,  but  probably  he  overlooked, — that 
one  union,  the  Hod  Carriers,  had  a  larger  increase 
last  year  in  membership  than  the  entire  membership 
of  the  I.  W.  W.  is  to-day.  The  United  Mine  Workers 
and  Brewery  Workers  include  thousands  upon  thou- 
sands of  unskilled,  so-called  "common  laborers"  in 
their  ranks. 

Commissioner  Garretson:  Then  the  American 
Federation  of  Labor  has  organized  more  unskilled 
workers  than  the  L  W.  W.  ? 

Mr.  Hayes:    Most  certainly. 

Commissioner  Garretson:  Then  on  the  former 
question  virtually  you,  as  a  citizen,  are  a  Socialist  ? 

Mr.  Hayes:  Yes,  sir. 

Commissioner  Garretson  :  As  a  worker  you  are 
a  trade  unionist? 

Mr.  Hayes:   I  am. 

Commissioner  Garretson:  Now,  one  further 
question.  I  would  like  to  ask  your  opinion  on  the 
difference  between  the  American  and  the  continental 
Socialist  movement.  Is  it  not  true  that  continental 
Socialism  is  more  a  movement  of  citizens  than  of 
workers,  on  account  of  the  disabilities  they  labor  un- 
der as  citizens  which  hamper  them  as  workers? 

Mr.  Hayes:  It  don't  make  any  difference  between 
the  workingman  and  the  citizen;  they  are  one  and  the 
same.    You  c'annot  separate  them. 

Commissioner  Garretson:  Does  he  not  bear  the 
dual  relation 

165 


Mr.  Hayes  :  He  does  bear  a  dual  relation,  yes,  sir. 
As  a  So.cialist  he  is  affiliated  with  the  Socialist  Demo- 
cratic Party  or  the  Labor  Party  or  the  Independent 
Labor  Party,  according  to  whatever  country  he  lives 
in,  and  likewise  he  is  required  to  associate  himself 
with  a  trade  union. 

Commissioner  Garretson:  Well,  would  you  not 
draw  the  same  distinction  in  regard  to  him  that  you 
did  with  regard  to  yourself,  that  politically  he  would 
be  a  Socialist  and  in  his  capacity  as  worker,  a  trade 
unionist  ? 

Mr.  Hayes:    Yes,  sir. 

Commfsstoner  Garretson:  So  the  two  would  be 
blended  there  as  is  unnecessary  here  to  a  certain  de- 
gree, would  they  not, — I  mean  as  an  absolute  neces- 
sity for  their  betterment? 

Mr.  Haves:  Yes.  Each  carries  out  its  own  func- 
tions; they  are  separate  organizations.  Likewise  there 
is  a  third  agency  called  the  Co-operative  movement. 
It  is  a  tri-partite  agreement  practically. 

Commissioner  Garretson:  That  is  all,  Mr.  Chair- 
man. 

Commissioner  Ballard:  You  say  that  the  A.  F. 
of  L.  and  the  Socialist  Party  both  want  to  lake  a 
larger  share  of  labor's  production? 

Mr.  Haves:    Yes,  sir. 

Commissioner  Ballard:  And  they  want  finally  to 
lake  it   all? 

Mr.  Hayes:  Undoubtedly.  Wealth  should  belong 
to  him  who  produces  it.  The  workers  produce  the 
wealth,  and  consequently  they  should  own  the  wealth. 

Commissioner  Ballard:  As  soon  as  they  become 
sufficiently  powerful  numerically  they  would  simply 
take  it.  whether  those  to  whom  it  belonged  wanted  to 
give  it  up  or  not? 

Mr.  Haves:  I  am  not  prepared  to  say  "just  how  they 
are  going  to  acquire  it.  If  I  had  my  way  about  it  they 
would  certainly  take  the  railways  and  the  mines  and 

166  ' 


the  steel  mills  and  other  great  monopoh'es  and  operate 
them  under  control  of  the  government  and  probably 
we  would  hire  Brother  Rockefeller  as  business  agent 
of  the  oil  division  of  the  government,  or  Judge  Gary 
as  manager  of  the  steel  department;  but  they  would 
have  to  be  workers. 

Commissioner  Ballard:  In  other  words,  yon 
would  put  men  in  charge  of  the  different  departments 
who  you  thought  could  handle  those  departments,  no 
matter  what  their  previous  cond,ition  had  been? 

Mr.  Hayes:  Oh,  yes;  they  would  be  superinten- 
dents. 

Commissioner  Ballard:  I  gather  from  the  I.  W. 
W.  that  they  want  to  do  the  same  thing,  except  they 
would  resort  to  force  immediately  to  take  it  as  soon 
as  they  felt  they  could,  and  the  Socialist  Party  does 
not  propose  quite  that  just  yet? 

Mr.  Heaves:  The  Socialist  Party  believes  in  organ- 
izing workingmen  politically  in  order  to  secure  con- 
trol of  the  law-making  rnachinery,  and  doing  it  legally. 
The  I.  W.  W.,  as  I  understand  it,  expects  to  accomplish 
it  by  so-called  direct  or  mass-action.  I  do  not  hanker 
for  that  sort  of  propaganda,  because  it  would  neces- 
sarily injure  the  working  masses — millions  of  in- 
dividuals. 

Commissioner  Ballarp:    That  is  all,  Mr.  Hayes. 

Mr.  Haves:  There  is  just  one  point,  Mr.  Chairman, 
on  which  I  would  like  to  say  something. 

Chairman  Walsh  :   Very  well.    You  may  state  it. 

Mr.  Hayes:  That  is,  with  reference  to  the  discus- 
sion here  yesterday  about  the  minimum  wage.  The 
minimum  wage  proposition  has  never  been  acted  upon 
authoritatively  by  the  American, Federation  of  Labor. 
I  do  not  believe,  with  President  Gompers,  that  the 
American  Federation  of  Labor, — though  he  probably 
has  a  right  to  speak  for  the  American  Federation  of 
Labor,  while  I  have  not, — is  committed  against  the 
minimum  wage.    There  has  never  been,  to  my  knowl- 

167 


edge,  any  discussion  on  the  question  of  a  general  mini- 
mum wage  law  in  any  convention  of  the  American 
Federation  of  Labor  or  in  the  International  Unions  in 
this  country.  The  matter  has  been  up  for  discussion 
in  State  conventions  and  in  local  bv  dies.  For  example, 
in  the  State  of  Ohio,  at  the  Constitutional  Convention 
in  191 2,  a  minimum  wage  amendment  was  submitted 
to  a  referendum  vote.  It  received  the  support  of  the 
labor  men  in  that  Constitutional  Convention — Social- 
ists and  trade  unionists — about  a  dozen  members  of  the 
convention.  From  there  it  went  to  the  people  of  the 
state  and  it  was  endorsed.  The  minimum  wage  propo- 
sition or  the  amendment  to  the  constitution  of  the 
State  of  Ohio  was  endorsed  generally  by  organized 
labor  of  that  State.  There  is  a  movement  now  on 
foot  in  the  State  of  Ohio  to  secure  the  enactment  of 
a  minimum  wage  law,  but  not  on  a  basis  prescribing 
$3.00  or  $3.50  or  $4.00  as  a  minimum  wage,  but  in 
line  with  the  constitutional  provisions  requiring  the 
appointment  of  a  Commission  to  examine  four  times 
a  year  the  living  conditions  that  exist  in  the  larger 
cities.  They  have  to  consider  the  cost  of  living :  Rent 
for  a  six-  or  seven-room  house,  clothing,  food  and 
other  immediate  necessaries.  Upon  the  basis  of  such 
cost  of  existence,  whether  it  be  $3.00  or  $5.00  or  $4.00 
a  day,  the  wage  will  have  to  be  paid,  if  the  law  is 
passed,  which  is  now  being  initiated  and  will  be  sub- 
mitted to  a  referendum  vote  in  the  next  year  or  two. 
Undoubtedly  other  states  will  copy  it,  as  they  have  our 
Workmen's  Compensation  Law.  By  the  way,  there  is 
another  point  I  want  to  touch  upon  in  just  a  few 
words.  That  the  Workmen's  Compensation  Law  in 
Ohio  was  drafted  and  prepared  by  a  Socialist,  Harry 
D.  Thomas.  He  has  since  died.  But  he  was  probably 
more  thoroughly  acquainted  with  legislation  pertain- 
ing to  compensation  laws  than  any  other  man.  He 
prepared  the  data  and  submitted  them  to  an  attorney 
entirely  in  sympathy  with  the  idea,  and  went  to  the 

168 


legislature,  and  there  it  was  adopted,  and  it  was  like- 
wise adopted  as  an  amendment  to  the  constitution. 
So  much  for  the  charge  that  the  Socialists  are  inac- 
tive in  the  matter  of  securing  legislation  for  the  better- 
m.ent  of  the  workers  to-day,  to-morrow  and  the  next 
day.    We  are  always  at  it. 

Commissioner  Ballard:  Just  one  point,  you  are 
in  favor  of  government  ownership  of  public  utilities, 
as  I  gather — railways  and  other  public  utilities? 

Mr,  Hayes:   Yes,  sir. 

Commissioner  Ballard:  Well,  in  the  experience 
of  those  states  where  that  has  been  done,  do  you  feel 
that  the  administration  has  been  better  than  where  it 
is  in  the  hands  of  private  corporations? 

Mr.-  Hayes:  I  believe  so,  all  things  considered. 
Germany's  railways  are  government-owned  and  oper- 
ated. They  have  been  cited  as  an  example,  and  those 
opposing  contend  that  they  are  not  a  success.  But 
when  you  take  into  consideration  the  fact  that  they 
were  nationalized  in  order  to  beat  back  the  rising  tide 
of  Socialism,  and  are  operated  by  people  who  are 
opposed  to  Socialism,  you  will  realize  that  many  econ- 
omies could  be  introduced  that  they  refuse  to.  They 
were  primarily  taken  over  for  military  purposes,  3-s 
a  matter  of  fact.  I  might  cite  other  examples  of  rail- 
ways, but  I  am  simply  coming  to  the  point  that  was 
emphasized  by  Mr.  Mellen  in  his  examination  in 
Washington  the  other  day,  that  it  is  either  a  case  of 
private  monopoly  or  government-owned  railways ;  and 
I  prefer  government  ownership  to  private  monopolies. 
That  is  all. 

Commissioner  Lennon  :  Mr.  Hayes,  do  you  be- 
lieve that  the  application  of  the  principles  of  Social- 
ism would  Solve  finally  the  problem  of  the  distribution 
of  wealth,  or  is  it  a  step  in  the  evolutionary  progress 
of  the  race? 

Mr.  Hayes  :  Oh,  it  is  a  step,  of  course.  The  next 
step  in  our  evolution  as  a  race.    Centuries  ago  we  had 

169 


the  condition  of  slavery,  then  we  evolved  into  feudal- 
ism, then  into  capitalism.  Now  we  are  going  towards 
Socialism,  and  I  might  say,  on  this  point  that  ten  years 
ago,  when  we  discussed  Socialism,  we  were  con- 
founded with  Anarchists  and  bomb-throwers,  while 
to-day  we  have  reached  the  point  where  we  are  almost 
respectable.  Most  people  think  they  know  something 
about  Socialism,  and  perhaps  they  are  becoming  a 
little  Socialistic  themselves.  So  that  when  my  friend 
Gompers  tries  to  ridicule  the  Socialist  movement,  he 
had  better  be  careful,  because  he  doesn't  know  what 
will  happen  in  the  next  ten  years.  He  accuses  the 
Socialists  of  having  purloined  some  of  the  demands 
of  the  trade  unions.  He  might  have  said  that  the 
Bull  Moosers  stole  some  from  the  Socialists ;  the 
Democratic  stole  some,  and  probably  the  old  Moss- 
back  Republican  Party  may  have  grabbed  a  few  of 
our  planks.  One 'thing  they  won't  steal,  and  that  is 
the  collective-ownership  plank. 


Morris  Hillquit,  recalled  as  a  witness  herein, 
further  testified  as  follows: 

Chairman  Walsh  :  You  may  proceed,  Mr.  Hill- 
quit,  and  answer  anything  that  you  see  fit  within  the 
time  limit ;  answer  any  part  of  what  has  gone  before 
in  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Compers  or  Mr.  St.  John. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  At  the  outset  I  desire  to  answer 
two  questions  raised  by  Mr.  Gompers  in  his  testimony. 
The  first  refers  to  the  character  of  the  Compensation 
Act  which  the  Socialists  in  the  City  of  New  York 
drafted  and  prepared  some  years  ago.  Mr.  Gompers* 
statement  was  to  the  effect  that  it  contained  a  demand 
fo'  the  appointment  of  a  Socialist  as  member  of  the 
proposed  Commission  and  also  for  an  appropriation  of 
one  million  dollars  by  the  State  of  New  York.  The 
draft  in  question  was  not  of  Socialist  authorship  ex- 
clusively. It  was  prepared  by  the  Socialists  in  con- 
junction with  representatives  of  the  labor  organiza- 

170 


tions  of  the  City  of  Greater  New  York,  that  is,  the 
organizations  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor 
in  that  City.  'When  adopted,  it  represented  the  local 
sentiment  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  as 
well  as  that  of  the  Socialists.  It  made  no  require- 
ment for  the  appointment  of  a  Socialist  on  the  Com- 
mission. It  did,  however,  contain  a  requirement  to 
the  effect  that  the  Commission  be  largely  composed  of 
accredited  representatives  of  organized  labor.  As  to 
the  million  dollars  appropriation,  I  don't  recall  it ;  but 
I  may  say  that  if  it  provided  for  the  sum  of  one  million 
dollars  to  be  appropriated  by  the  State  of  New  York 
for  the  purpose  of  organizing  a  proper  machinery  for 
the  administration  of  a  workmen's  compensation  sys- 
tem, the  demand  was  exceedingly  modest.  The  State 
of  New  York,  with  its  f)opulation  of  ten  million  or 
more,  the  State  of  New  York,  which  appropriates 
sixty  million  dollars  for  improvement  of  canals  and 
to  help  trade  along,  should  consider  it  a  mere  pittance 
to  allow  one  million  dollars  to  save  the  lives  and  limbs 
of  its  one  million  and  a  half  industrial  employes,  and, 
Mr.  Gompers,  I  believe,  should  be  the  last  man  in  the 
world  to  find  it  exorbitant. 

Mr.  Gompers  has  also  stated  that  the  Socialist  rep- 
resentative in  Congress,  Victor  L.  Berger,  had  voted 
to  sustain  the  veto  power  of  the  President  of  the 
L'nited  States.  That  statement  I  wish  to  deny.  The 
Socialist  Party  directly  requires  by  its  platform  the 
abolition  of  the  Senate  and  of  the  veto  power  of  the 
President.  Of  course,  the  question  of  sustaining  the 
veto  power  of  the  President  never  came  up  in  Con- 
gress. What  Mr.  Gompers  is  pleased  to  construe  as 
such  a  vote.  was.  no  doubt,  a  vote  or  votes  on  two 
measures,  which  Mr.  1  Merger  considered  reacti-jnary 
and  oppo'^ed  to  ihe  best  interests  of  the  workers,  lie 
voted  again-t  the  measures.  The  President  of  the 
l'nited  States  happened  to  share  his  conception  of  it 
and  vetoed  the  bills  after  the  majority  had  voted  in 

171 


their  favor.  The  bills  then  came  up  a  second  time, 
and  they  were  still  as  reactionary  and  as  bad  as  ever. 
Mr.  Berger  consistently  voted  against  them.  And 
that  is  all  there  is  to  his  voting  to  maintain  the  veto 
power  of  the  President  of  the  United  States. 

This  by  way  of  rebuttal.  And  now  I  shall  say  a  few 
words  by  way  of  summary  on  the  relations  of  the  So- 
cialist movement  to  the  American  Federation  of  Labor. 
Since  the  method  of  mutual  cross-examination  has 
brought  out  a  good  many,  but  not  all  the  conclusions, 
I  shall  add  this  briefly. 

First  of  all,  the  matter,  it  seems  to  me,  is  one  of 
very  large  importance.  The  American  Federation  of 
Labor  and  all  other  organized  workers  within  or  out- 
side of  the  Federation  represent  about  three  million 
persons.  The  Socialist  Party  at  the  last  Presidential 
election  polled  almost  one  million  votes.  We  may 
legitimately  assume  that  for  every  male  voter  there 
is  a  female  non-voting  Socialist  sympathizer,  and, 
taking  the  men  and  women  voters  and  non- voters  we 
may  conservatively  estimate  the  number  of  persons 
in  the  United  States  who  support  the  Socialist  philos- 
ophy and  programme  to  be  likewise  about  three  mil- 
lions. The  relation  between  those  two  powerful  fac- 
tors in  the  industrial  and  political  world,  seems  to  me, 
of  importance,  and  I  wish  to  state,  for  the  benefit  of 
the  Commission,  the  public  at  large,  and  the  working 
class  particularly,  that  whether  for  good  or  for  evil, 
the  Sof'ialist  movement  and  the  organized  economic 
labor  movement  must  be  considered  ultimately  -is  one. 
Born  of  the  same  conditions,  having  consciously  <.»r  un- 
consciously the  same  aims  and  objects,  and  leading  to 
the  same  result.  The  Socialist  movement  aims  to  secure 
to  the  workers  the  full  product  of  their  labor  and, 
by  the  same  token,  to  deprive  the  idlers  of  their  un- 
earned part  of  the  general  national  product.  It  itands, 
then,  for  the  nationalization  of  industries;  for  the 
collective  ownership  of  means  of  operating  those  in- 

172 


dustries.  The  labor  movement,  it  appears  very  clearly 
from  Mr.  Gompers'  statements,  stands  likewise  for 
an  ever  increasing  share  of  the  product  to  be  given 
to  the  workers;  for  an  ever  decreasing  share  of  the 
product  to  be  left  to  the  non-'workers,  and  Mr.  Gom- 
pers admitted  that  this  process  has  no  limitation  and 
will  not  stop  before  the  entire  product  of  the  work  is 
turned  over  to  the  working  class  as  a  whole.  Thus, 
you  'see,  substantially  and  ultimately,  the  two  move- 
ments stand  for  the  same  thing.  The  distinction  is 
mainly  one  of  the  degree  of  consciousness.  The  So- 
cialists proceed  upon  a  general  social  philosophy. 
They  have  thought  out  the  thing,  they  have  asked 
themselves  where  it  leads  to,  they  have  drawn  their 
conclusions  and  formulated  them  in  the  Socialist  pro- 
gramme. The  trade  union  movement,  on  the  other 
hand,  as  Mr.  Gompers  himself  stated,  is  not  concerned 
much  with  ultimate  ends  or  social  philosophies.  It 
works  for  immediate  ends,  but  those  ends  lead  event- 
ually to  the  same  point.  There  is  also  no  great  merit 
in  the  distinction  between  political  and  economic  func- 
tions. The  demand  to  abolish  child  labor  in  a  certain 
shop  or  a  number  of  shops,  or  to  introduce  an  eight- 
hour  workday  in  a  certain  shop  or  in  a  num.ber  of 
shops,  is  economic  if  made  by  the  workers  in  those 
shops  on  their  employers.  The  same  demands  stated 
broadly  for  an  entire  industry  or  an  entire  division 
of  the  working  class,  and  being  formulated  by  way  of 
legal  enactment,  becomes  political  action.  And  it  is 
just  because  the  Socialist  stand  for  the  larger  aspect 
of  the  movement  that  their  activity  is  more  political, 
and  it  is  because  the  labor  unions,  while  standing  on 
the  same  basis,  do  not  have  the  larger  vision  that  they 
consider  their  activity  primarily  economic.  As  to  the 
ultimate  result,  the  two  do  not  differ  much  from  each 
other.  I  make  that  statement  to  avert  any  misunder- 
standing as  to  the  attitude  of  the  Socialist  Party  to- 
ward the  American  Federation  of  Labor. 

173 


What  Mr.  Hayes  has  said  here  is  not  his  individual 
view.  It  is  the  view  of  the  Socialist  Party  at  large. 
The  Socialist  Party  is  absolutely  committed  to  a  policy 
of  friendship  to  organized  labor,  and  unequivocally 
recognizes  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  to-day 
as  the  main  representative  of  organized  labor.  The 
little  tilt  I  had  with  my  friend,  Mr.  Gompers,  was 
very  largely  individual  and  directed  not  against  the 
American  Federation  of  Labor,  but  against  certain 
conceptions  and  policies  of  the  present  leadership  of 
the  American  Federation  of  Labor.  The  attitude  of 
the  Socialist  Party  to  the  American  Federation  of 
Labor  as  such,  as  distinguished  from  its  leadership, 
is  absolutely  friendly,  and  the  criticism  which  is 
directed  against  its  present  leadership,  is  also  of  a 
friendly  nature. 

I  shall  mention  these  criticisms  briefly.  In  the  first 
place,  the  Socialists  believe  that  the  leaders  of  the 
American  Federation  of  Labor  fail  to  recognize  the 
drift  and  trend  towards  industrialism  in  organization. 
Now,  mind  you,  we  don't  say  that  the  American  Fed- 
eration of  Labor  is  not  developing  in  that  direction. 
It  is.  But  what  we  do  say  is  that  the  development 
is  not  aided  consciously  by  its  leaders,  because  the 
leaders  fail  to  understand  the  importance  of  it.  The 
present  leaders  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor 
fail  to  see  that  industrial  conditions  to-day  are  not 
what  they  were  in  1881,  when  the  Federation  or  its 
predecessor  was  organized.  Mr.  Gompers  placidly  told 
here  on  the  stand  that  the  American  Federation  of 
Labor  had  originally  adopted  a  plan  and  system  of 
absolute  autonomy  of  trades  and  had  rigidly  adhered 
to  it.  If  it  actually  had,  it  would  not  be  a  subject  for 
praise,  but  one  for  severe  criticism,  because  industrial 
development  has  not  stood  still  within  the  last  thirtv 
years.  Industries  to-day  are  more  iuter-related,  more 
interwoven,  more  organically  connected,  than  they 
were  in  1881,  and  if  the  workers  are  to  keep  pace  with 

174 


them  and  be  in  a  position  to  meet  their  employers  and 
their  organizations,  they  must  organize  accordingly. 
The  example  cited  by  Mr.  Gompers,  that  of  the  State 
organizations  and  the  Federal  Government  of  the 
United  States,  does  not  apply  at  all.  That  is  purely 
political.  And  industry  cannot  be  so  separated  from 
its  parts  as  one  State  may  be  separated  geographically 
and  arbitrarily  from  another.  Now,  we  recognize, 
however,  that  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  is 
tending  toward  ever  greater  industrial  organizations. 
We  fully  approve  of  the  report  which  Mr.  Gompers 
offered  in  evidence  here  before  the  Commission  and 
favor  the  extension  of  industrialism  within  the  Amer- 
ican Federation  of  Labor.  We  only  wish  that  the 
leaders  of  the  Federation  had  been  clear-sighted 
enough  to  see  the  tendency  and  to  co-operate  with  it 
and  help  it  along  more  assiduously. 

Another  point  of  criticism  we  have  is  this,  that  the 
American  Federation  of  Labor  does  not  seem  to  un- 
derstand the  significance  of  the  agitation  which  has 
assumed  the  name  I.  W.  W.,  and  here  I  want  to 
make  this  statement :  The  Socialist  Party  has  no  sym- 
pathy with  the  methods  of  the  Industrial  Workers  of 
the  World,  none  whatsoever.  You  have  heard  the 
testimony  of  the  representatives  of  that  organization. 
We  regard  their  methods  as  absolutely  ineffective  and 
childishly  inadequate.  But  the  "Industrial  Workers  of 
the  World"  means  more  than  the  fourteen  thousand 
men  organized  in  Mr.  St.  John's  organization.  It 
means  a  certain  new  spirit  in  the  American  labor  move- 
ment. It  means  Lawrence,  it  means  Patersons.  It 
means  Little  Falls,  it  means  McKeesport  Rock.  It 
means  this  new  phase  of  the  labor  movement  which 
has  arisen  within  the  last  few  years.  How  are  we  to 
account  for  it?  How  does  the  American  Federation 
of  Labor  account  for  it  ?  It  is  not  a  mere  accident. 
There  must  be  some  cause  underlying  it.  Nothing  is 
produced  without  causes.  The  causes,  as  we  Socialists 
see  them,  are  briefly  stated  as  follows : 

175 


First,  the  development  of  machine  industry  has 
made  skilled  labor  a  less  and  less  important  factor,  and 
unskilled  labor  a  more  important  factor  in  this  coun- 
try. It  has  attracted  a  different  type  of  immigrants, 
who  have  come  here  by  millions,  who  have  no  right  of 
citizenship,  are  unorganized  and  poor  beyond  descrip- 
tion, and  who  have  no  means  of  civilized  resistance  or 
welfare.  It  has  created  a  new  class  within  the  work- 
ing class,  and  has  led  to  the  spontaneous  unorganized 
and  frequent  violent  outbursts  which  we  designate  by 
the  general  phrase,  "I.  W.  W.  revolts."  These  revolts 
are  not  explained  by  calling  the  I.  W.  W.  names. 
They  represent  a  new  phase  in  the  labor  movement, 
and  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  should  have 
taken  cognizance  of  it  by  making  more  strenuous  ef- 
forts— it  has  made  honest  efforts,  I  admit — but  it 
should  have  made  more  strenuous  efforts  to  organize 
these  men  and  to  acclimatize  them,  and,  if  you  want, 
to  Americanize  them  and  make  them  part  and  parcel 
of  the  American  labor  movement. 

On  the  question  of  politics  Mr.  Hayes  has  said  a 
good  deal,  and,  in  view  of  my  limited  time,  I  shall  not 
take  it  up.  But  I  wish  to  say  a  few  words  on  another 
subject  of  criticism,  and  that  is  the  relation  of  certain 
leaders  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  to  the 
Civic  Federation.  The  Civic  Federation  is  an  organiza- 
tion founded  by  employers  for  the  purpose  princi- 
pally and  primarily  of  deadening  the  aggressive  spirit 
of  the  American  labor  movement,  and  I  think  it  is 
succeeding  marvellously.  Mr.  Gompers  has  stated 
here  that  the  National  Civic  Federation  has  no  mem- 
bership, and  that  he  is  not  a  member  of  it.  Since  he 
is  to  follow  me,  I  should  like  him  to  answer  these  few 
questions : 

First,  if  the  National  Civic  Federation  has  no  mem- 
bership and  anyone  who  happens  to  come  in  has  a 
voice  in  the  choice  of  officers,  would  it  be  permissible 
for  me  and,  say,  a  hundred  of  my  Socialist  friends 

176 


to  go  to  the  next  meeting  and  to  vote  in  the  election 
of  officials  ?    If  it  were,  we  might  be  tempted  to  try  it. 

Second,  if  the  National  Civic  Federation  has  no 
membership,  it  has,  presumably,  no  dues.  It  main- 
tains an  elaborate  office.  It  pays  salaries  to  a  secretary 
and  a  large  staff  of  workers.  It  has  various  depart- 
ments. It  spends  very  large  sums  of  money.  One 
of  the  features  of  its  activities  is  a  very  lavish  annual 
banquet.  I  should  like  to  know,  Mr.  Gompers,  where 
that  money  comes  from  ?  Does  the  American  Federa- 
tion of  Labor  contribute  any  part  to  it,  and  if  it  does 
not,  who  does?  And  if  it  is  all  contributed  by  onr 
capitalists  and  their  friends  in  the  National  Civic  Fed- 
eration, I  should  like  Mr.  Gompers  to  say  whether, 
in  his  opinion,  such  contributations  are  made  solely 
and  singlemindedly  for  the  benefit  of  the  workers? 

I  am  now  ready  to  answer  questions. 

Commissioner,  Garretson:  There  has  been  one 
point  that  has  not  been  brought  out  here  at  all  from 
the  standpoint  of  the  Socialists  and  on  which  I  would 
like  an  expression.  What  is  the  attitude  of  the  So- 
cialists toward  the  means  of  economizing  industrial 
waste  caused  by  strikes  ?  Do  you  look  on  the  Erdman 
act — I  am  citing  the  only  Federal  enactment — as  a 
desirable  means  of  settlement  of  labor  difficulties? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  The  Socialist  Party  has  not  ex- 
pressed itself  on  this  subject.  The  Socialists  on  the 
whole  regard  a  strike  as  a  necessary  and  inevitable 
evil — an  evil  inherent  in  the  present  system  and  which 
no  amount  of  legislation  can  curb  or  change.  In  other 
words,  we  believe  that  there  is  a  case  where  we  would 
agree  with  Mr.  Gompers  and  say,  "Beware  of  the 
Greeks  bearing  gifts,"  if  the  legislature  were  to  enact 
or  offer  to  enact  any  measure  tending  to  prevent 
strikes  and  to  substitute  other  methods  of  settlement 
of  labor  disputes.  For  what  that  might  mean  would 
be  that  whereas  the  workers  in  well-organized  indus- 
tries to-day  have  that  last  resort,  the  strike,  by  which 

177 


they  may  enforce  their  demands,  that  weapon  would 
be  taken  away  from  them  by  legislative  enactment. 

Commissioner  Garretson  :  You  are  aware  of  the 
origin  of  the  Erdman  Act? 

Mr.  Hillquit:    Not  very  well. 

Commissioner  Garretson  :  I  will  say  here  that  the 
Erdman  Act  was  pressed  largely  by  the  Railway  or- 
ganizations. Do  you  regard  a  purely  voluntary  settle- 
ment as  represented  by  that  Act  as  a  desirable  agency 
— bearing  in  mind  that  your  views  as  expressed  with 
regard  to  the  strike  are  exactly  my  own — to  minimize 
the  times  when  it  becomes  an  absolute  necessity? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Yes,  if  it  can  be  done  without 
sacrifice  to  the  workers. 

Commissioner  Garretson:    Or  without  pressure? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Without  pressure  and  without  sac- 
rifice of  the  interests  of  the  workers.  I  would,  of 
course,  prefer,  as  a  rule,  to  avoid  strikes  rather  than 
to   incur   strikes. 

Commissioner  Garretson:  You  are  also  familiar 
with  the  successor  of  the  Erdman  Act,  the  Newlands 
Act? 

Mr.  Hillquit:   In  a  general  way. 

Commissioner  Garretson  :  Are  you  familiar  with 
the  conditions  that  led  up  to  its  adoption? 

Mr.  Hillquit:   I  am  not. 

Commissioner  Garretson:  You  don't  know  what 
function  the  Civic  Federation  performed  in  that? 

Mr.  Hillquit:   I  do  not. 

Commissioner  Garretson:  I  am  not  on  the  wit- 
ness stand. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  No.  But  there  is  only  one  point, 
Mr.  Garretson,  in  which  again  I  would  like  to  quote 
my  friend  Gompers  with  reference  to  the  Civic  Fed- 
eration. I  would  say,  "Beware  of  the  Greeks  bearing 
gifts." 

Commissioner  O'Connell:  The  closing  paragraph 
of  instructions  under  which  this  Commission  is  cre- 

178 


ated,  reads:  "The  Commission  shall  seek  to  discover 
the  underlying  cause  of  dissatisfaction  in  the  indus- 
trial situation  and  report  its  conclusions."  If  you 
were  a  member  of  this  Commission,  what  would  you 
state  as  your  opinion  to  be  the  cause  of  the  industrial 
unrest  ? 

Mr.  Hillquit  :  That  would  be  an  exceedingly  easy 
task  for  me.  I  think  the  National  platform  of  the 
Socialist  Party  gives  a  perfectly  clear  statement  of 
the  causes  of  the  unrest,  the  ultimate  remedy,  and 
the  immediate  remedy  applicable  to-day. 

Commissioner  O'Connell:  What  would  be  the 
immediate  remedy? 

Mr.  Hillquit:  The  immediate  remedy  would  be 
the  adoption  of  the  various  planks  in  the  platform  of 
the  Socialist  Party  which  I  yesterday  had  the  pleas- 
ure of  reading  to  Mr.  Gompers  and  to  which  he  gave 
assent  in  practically  all  cases.  That  would  be  the  im- 
mediate remedy. 

Commissioner  O'Connell':  What  would  you  as- 
sign as  the  cause  of  industrial  unrest? 

Mr.  Hillquit  :  The  private  ownership  of  the  tools 
for  the  production  of  the  things  which  all  men  need 
to  sustain  their  lives. 

Chairman  Walsh  :  Now,  I  have  a  couple  of  ques- 
tions that  I  am  going  to  submit  to  you  and  ask  you 
if  you  will  give  them  some  sort  of  answer  in  writing. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  Yes,  sir. 

Chairman  Walsh  :  We  will  give  it  whatever  pub- 
lication we  can,  but  I  will  ask  you  to  give  it  some 
thought,  and  I  will  ask  you  to  hand  it  in.  In  addition 
to  the  interests  of  the  capitalists,  and  the  workers, 
tending  to  range  them  in  opposition  to  each  other,  is 
there  not  a  sense  of  justice  existing  in  some  minds 
that  inclines  them  to  act  without  regard  to  class  inter- 
ests; and,  second,  are  there  any  prominent  capitalists 
in  the  Socialist  Party? 

179 


Mr.  Hillquit  :   The  answer  to  both  is  "Yes  "    It 
does  not  require  any  study. 

Chair,man  Walsh:   Very  well,  that  is  all  then. 


Samuel  Gompers,  recalled. 

Mr.  Gompers:  Whenever  any  utterance  is  made 
by  me  that  may  be  a  declaration  of  a  principle  or  a 
purpose  with  which  the  Socialists  differ,  they  have  no 
hesitancy  to  misrepresent  and  misquote  me.  On  the 
contrary,  the  very  emphasis  which  I  may  give  to  any 
particular  point  will  simply  be  distorted  again  in  order 
that  the  misrepresentation  may  be  continued.  On  the 
subject  of  an  eight-hour  law  I  have  said  that  we  have 
worked  for  the  establishment  of  the  eight-hour  work- 
day by  law  for  all  employes  of  the  Government, 
whether  National,  State  or  Municipal,  and  for  all 
employes  of  contractors  or  sub-contractors  who  Jo 
Government  work.  An  eight-hour  day  for  all  Govern- 
ment employes,  because  the  Government  is  then  the 
employer.  An  eight-hour  day  for  minors,  and  for 
woman  workers.  But  I  am  opposed  to  the  statutory 
fixing  of  the  hours  of  labor  for  men,  and  I  gave  the 
historic  achievements  of  the  working  people  of  the 
United  States,  true,  only  partially,  but  yet  achieve- 
ments secured  by  the  workmen  through  their  own 
initiative,  through  their  own  collective  action  or  by 
agreement  with  employers.  Now,  in  the  limited  time 
at  my  disposal,  unless  any  further  questions  are  asked 
me,  I  should  like  to  take  up  some  things  that  have  been 
said.  First,  the  construction  placed  by  Mr.  Hillquit 
upon  the  statement  which  I  made  in  answer  to  one  of 
his  questions  as  to  membership  in  the  Civic  Federa- 
tion. I  omitted  to  say,  "Dues-paying  member^ip." 
Answering  his  question  of  this  morning  I  should  say 
that  the  National  Civic  Federation  exists  by  the  volun- 
tary contributions  of  those  who  agree  to  contribute  in 
furtherance  of  any  thought  or  purpose  that  they  may 
have  in  mind.     I  want  to  call  your  attention  to  the 

180 


studied  effort  of  Mr.  Hillquit  to  call  that  Association 
the  American  Civic  Federation,  with  the  avowed  ef- 
fort frequently  made  by  the  Socialists,  and  as  evi- 
denced by  his  questions  to  me  upon  cross-examina- 
tion, to  confuse  the  American  Federation  of  Labor 
with  the  National  Civic  Federation,  and  to  use  the 
term  as  the  associates  of  Mr.  Hillquit  so  frequently 
use.  They  often  refer  to  the  American  Federation 
of  Labor  by  the  supposed  title  of  the  American  Civic 
Federation  of  Labor.  The  difference  is  between  prac- 
tice and  pretense.  The  pussy-footed  Socialist,  Mr. 
Hillquit,  before  this  Commission,  is  not  the  same 
kind  of  Socialist  before  the  world.  (Laughter  in 
audience.) 

It  may  not  take  a  man  five  minutes  to  ask  questions, 
which  it  would  take  hours,  and  sometimes  weeks,  to 
answer.  Th"at  there  may  be  no  question  on  this  mat- 
ter, let  me  quote  from  Mr.  Morris  Hillquit,  member 
of  the  Executive  Committee  of  the  Socialist  Party, 
one  of  its  ablest  and  most  sophistical  exponents  of 
Socialism  in  this  country.  In  the  Metropolitan  Mag- 
azine for  July,  19 1 2,  he  says: 

"Stated  in  more  concrete  terms,  the  Socialist  pro- 
gram requires  the  public  or  collective  ownership 
and  operation  of  the  principal  instruments  and  agen- 
cies for  the  production  and  distribution  of  wealth. 
The  land,  mines,  railroads,  steamboats,  telegraph  and 
telephone  lines,  mills,  factories  and  modern  machinery. 
This  is  the  main  program,  and  the  ultimate  aim  of 
the  whole  Socialist  movement  and  the  political  creed 
of  all  Socialists.  It  is  the  unfailing  test  of  Socialist 
adherence,  and  admits  of  no  limitation,  extension  or 
variation.  Whoever  accepts  this  program  is  a  So- 
cialist, whoever  does  not,  is  not." 

In  fact,  in  all  their  platforms,  immediately  follow- 
ing their  so-called  "Social  Reform"  program,  will 
appear  the  frank  avowal  quoted  below,  this  one  being 

181 


taken  from  the  platform  of  the  national  Socialist  con- 
vention in  Indianapolis,  in  June,  1912: 

"Such  measures  of  relief  as  we  may  be  able  to 
force  from  capitalism  are  but  a  preparation  of  the 
workers  to  seize  the  whole  powers  of  government  in 
order  that  they  may  thereby  lay  hold  of  the  whole 
system  of  socialized  industry  and  thus  come  into 
their  rightful  inheritance." 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  here  a  number  of  quotations, 
which  I  should  like  to  have  incorporated  aS"  a  part  ot 
my  statement,  which  I  do  not  care,  at  this  time,  to  read 
in  my  time. 

Chairman  Walsh  :  Very  good.  Just  give  them 
to  the  stenographer,  and  they  will  be  identified  and 
put  in  as  part  of  your  statement. 

Mr.  Gompers  :  As  to  the  suggestion  .  of  making 
more  strenuous  efforts  to  organize  the  unskilled 
workers,  the  American  Federation  of  Labor,  during 
the  entire  year,  devotes  more  of  its  time  and  more  of 
its  revenues,  more  of  the  efforts  of  its  officers,  organ- 
izers and  representatives,  to  the  organization  of  the 
unskilled  workers,  than  to  any  other  one  thing.  It  'is 
physically  imposible  to  make  more  strenuous  efforts 
in  any  cause  than  are  made  in  that  direction  by  the 
witness  before  this  Commission  at  this  time,  and  who 
is  made  the  principal  object  of  attack  by  t  e  Socialists 
here  and  elsewhere.  There  is  no  man — I  don't  care 
who  he  is — who  works  harder  and  more  consistently 
and  persistently  in  the  effort  to  organize  the  workers,  in 
the  effort  to  improve  their  conditions,  in  the  effort  to 
secure,  to  firmly  rivet,  the  rights  to  which  the  toilers 
of  our  country  are  entitled;  and  to  the  suggestion  by 
one  who  is  in  the  ranks  of  the  Socialists,  that  more 
strenuous  efforts  should  be  put  forth,  conies  with  ill 
grace.  After  all,  what  is  "skilled"  and  "un-^killed"? 
It  i?  all  a  matter  of  graduation.  There  are  «:ome  men 
who  say  that  they  work  with  their  heads.  My  answer 
to  that  is,  so  do  hogs.     The  matter  of  g^fts  and 

182 


powers  and  responsibility  entering  into  their  work 
are  required  in  any  field  of  wage  labor.  What  would 
you  call  the  ditch  digger,  what  would  you  call  the 
hod  carrier,  the  laborer?  What  would  you  call  the 
conductor  on  a  street  railway?  What  would  you  call 
a  street  railway  motorman,  a  man  who  will  Dcquire 
the  ability  to  operate  a  car  in  the  course  of  six  or 
eight  or  ten  hours,  and  is  entrusted  after  that  with  the 
operation  of  the  car?  The  fact  of  the  matter  is,  that 
for  a  long  period  of  years  the  Socialists  have  had  the 
open  sesame  to  the  people  of  Europe,  who  speak  lan- 
guages other  than  English,  and  the  minds  of  the  for- 
eign speaking  workmen  have  been  poisoned  against 
the  American  Federation  of  Labor,  and,  as  a  con- 
sequence, many  of  the  workmen  from  other  countries 
in  which  languages  other  than  English  are  spoken, 
come  here  with  minds  prejudiced  and  poisoned  against 
the  American  labor  movement,  and  they  start  out  what 
they  regard  as  their  own  movement. 

Now,  before  I  get  deeper  into  this  question,  let  me 
say  that  I  quite  agree  with  Mr.  Hayes'  statement  that, 
after  all,  the  quarrel  is  among  us,  our  dispute  is  among 
us,  the  working  people,  and  we  are  fighting  it  out  as 
best  we  know  how.  Men  who  are  Socialists  belong  to 
the  unions  affiliated  with  the  American  Federation  of 
Labor.  Mr.  Hayes  is  a  member  of  the  International 
Typographical  Union,  and  I  think  at  least  he  will 
agree  with  me  in  this,  that  in  the  conventions  of  the 
International  Typographical  Union  he  has  as  much 
say  as  any  other  member  or  delegate.  In  the  con- 
ventions of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  he  has 
as  free  a  throw  to  express  his  opinion  as  any  other 
man. 

And  I  want  to  call  your  attention  to  this  one  fact, 
that,  during  the  period  of  preparation  of  the  Inter- 
national Typographical  Union  for  the  inauguration 
of  the  eight-hour  workday,  and  in  the  face  of  the 
possibility  of  a  strike  being  inaugurated  for  its  ac- 

183 


complishment,  Mr.  Max  Hayes,  the  Socialist,  wa 
tr.ctful  enough  to  declare  that  Socialist  f>olicy  and 
Socialist  philosophy  must  not  be  injected  into  the  trade 
union  movement,  at  least  during  the  period  of  that 
controversy.  And  I  held  with  him.  But  where  his 
was  a  temporary  limitation,  mine  is  an  absolute  one. 
It  is  not  necessary  to  make  more  difficult  the  strenu- 
ous struggle  of  America's  organized  workers  with 
their  terrific  enemies  and  powerful  employers. 

The  other  point  of  difference  particularly  lies,  and 
I  want  to  emphasize  it,  in  the  constant  attempt  of 
Socialist  speakers  and  writers  to  belittle  the  achieve- 
ments of  the  organized  labor  movement  of  America. 
Their  argument  is  that,  even  after  you  increase  wages, 
it  does  not  do  any  material  good.  It  is  simply  so  much 
effort  wasted.  The  effort  of  the  Socialist  Party  is  to 
divert  the  attention  of  the  American  working  people 
from  the  immediate  needs  and  from  the  immediate 
struggle  to  something  remote.  If  the  working  people 
of  America  can  be  made  to  believe  that  they  can  «-ecure 
the  relief  they  need,  the  improvement  which  is  justly 
theirs,  the  freedom  which  they  ought  to  have,  by  cast- 
ing a  vote  once  every  year,  wherefore  join  in  the 
unions  engaged  in  the  every-day  struggle  to  improve 
material  conditions  now?  It  is  the  position  of  the 
man  who  preaches  from  the  pulpit  that  the  working 
people  are  in  the  position  God  ordained,  and  that  they 
will  have  a  better  time  in  the  sweet  bye  and  bye.  And 
it  is  the  same  with  the  Socialists,  who  paint  a  beauti- 
ful picture  of  a  future,  luring  the  workmen  from 
the  immediate  struggles  to  the  hopes  for  the  future. 
It  is  the  idea  of  men  being  diverted  from  the  immedi- 
ate struggles  and  immediate  needs  for  the  natural, 
rational  development  of  the  human  race ;  and  securing 
day  by  day,  and  week  by  week,  and  month  by  month, 
and  year  by  year,  a  little  to-day,  a  little  to-morrow, 
adding,  adding,  gaining,  gaining,  moving  forward,  al- 
ways a  step  in  advance,  and  never  taking  one  receding 

184 


step  except  it  be  to  plant  the  foot  forward  firmer  thr\n 
ever  before. 

I  would  not  want  any  man  to  believe  that  our  move- 
ment is  satisfied.  There  is  not  anything  satisfying  in 
what  we  have  accomplished.  It  is  gratifying  but 
simply  whets  our  appetite  and  desires  for  better  and 
better  and  still  better  things 

My  time  is  running  away  from  me,  and  there  is  so 
much  to  say,  and  yet  I  cannot  help,  but  must  take 
cognizance  of  the  explanations  which  Mr.  Qillquit 
made  for  Mr.  Berger  in  voting  to  sustain  the  Presi- 
dent's veto  in  the  House  of  Representatives, 

You  know  that  the  Congress  of  the  United  States, 
using  the  nomenclature  of  Socialists,  is  a  capitalistic 
concern.  The  Congress. of  the  United  States  passed 
two  measures  amended  by  the  American  Federation 
of  Labor,  and  that  is : 

1.  For  a  better  regulation  of  immigration  into  the 
United  States;  and 

2.  An  appropriation  bill  in  which  was  contained 
the  demands  made  by  the  American  Federation  of 
Labor. 

It  was  that  appropriations  contained  in  that  bill 
should  not  be  used  to  prosecute  men  or  women  of 
labor  in  their  effort  to  raise  wages,  shorten  hours  or 
to  improve  their  working  conditions.  I  grant  that 
that  was  not  a  fundamental  law  and  that  it  was  not 
so  far-reaching,  but  capitalist  Congress  passed  it  at 
the  request  of  labor,  and  Mr.  Victor  Berger,  the  only 
Socialist  member  of  Congress,  voted  first  against  the 
proposition  itself,  and  then  when  the  President  vetoed 
it,  he,  as  the  representative  of  this  great  party  of  labor, 
voted  to  sustain  a  President  in  that  veto;  and  let  me 
say  that  the  idea  of  a  man  of  democratic  tendencies, 
much  less  a  pronounced  Socialist,  voting  in  favor  of 
sustaining  the  veto  of  any  President  upon  any  meas- 
ure is  contrary  to  the  principles  of  democracy;  for 

185 


the  Presidential  veto  is  nothing  more  than  an  inheri- 
tance of  the  exercise  of  the  royal  prerogative. 

Commissioner  O'Connell:  What  was  the  second r 

Mr.  Gompers:  The  other  bill,  Mr.  O'Connell,  was 
a  bill  to  regulate  immigration  to  the  United  States, 
which  every  man  realizes  is  necessary,  no  matter  what 
differences  there  may  be  as  to  the  degree  of  regula- 
tion and  limitation.  There  is  a  general  agreement 
among  the  people  of  the  United  States  that  some  regu- 
lation and  limitation  is  necessary  other  than  that  which 
exists  to-day.  That  bill  passed  the  house  of  Repre- 
sentatives and  the  United  States  Senate  by  overwhelm- 
ing majorities,  and  then  came  to  the  President.  The 
President  vetoed  it,  and  Mr.  Berger  voted  to  sustain 
the  veto,  and  was  one  among  the  minority  which  stood 
in  the  way  of  securing  the  two-thirds  vote  to  pass  the 
bill  over  the  President's  veto,  an  action  which  should 
not  only  damn  the  man  politically  in  his  own  party, 
but  in  the  eyes  of  every  democrat  in  the  best  sense  ot 
that  term,  and  not  in  its  party  sense. 

The  American  Federation  oS  Labor  has  always 
been  striving  to  get  the  workmen  to  organize  and  to 
unite,  to  fraternize,  and  to  make  a  common  cause  as 
best  you  can;  to  have  their  agreements  terminated 
as  near  as  possible,  about  the  same  time,  so  that  new 
joint  agreements  of  one  industry  or  kindred  trades 
might  be  made  under  the  best  conditions  with  the 
employers. 

May  I  call  attention  again  to  the  report  of  the  Ex- 
ecutive Council  to  the  Rochester  Convention  on  the 
question  of  industrial  unionism.  The  report  of  the 
committee  upon  that  subject,  which  was  adopted  by 
the  Convention,  was  submitted  to  Mr.  Hillquit  upon 
the  witness  stand,  and  he  could  express  no  dissent 
from  it.  Yet,  this  morning  he  said  that  we  have  not 
reached,  and  are  only  reaching  that  goal  from  which 
he  himself  could  not  dissent. 

In  regard  to  the  Workmen's  Compensation  bill,  let 

186 


me  say  this:  "That  there  are  now  representatives  of 
labor  as  Commissioners  on  that  commission,  and  since 
Mr.  John  Mitchell  was  appointed  a  Commissioner,  he 
has  been  stigmatized  by  the  Socialist  press  and 
speakers  as  a  faker,  a  four-flusher  and  a  fraud  upon 
the  American  workmen.  Mr.  James  Lynch,  the  Com- 
missioner of  the  Deparement  of  Labor,  formerly 
President  of  the  International  Typographical  Union, 
has  been  denounced  time  and  again  as  a  faker,  four- 
flusher  and  fraud,  an  imposter  upon  labor,  a  misleadcr. 
Let  the  trade  union  movement  anywhere  in  the  coun- 
try nominate  a  labor  man  for  any  position,  such  as, 
for  instance,  the  Board  of  Aldermen,  the  State  Legis- 
lature, or  Congress  of  the  United  States,  and  the  So- 
cialist Party  will  antagonize  him.  Why,  Mr.  Frank 
Buchanan,  former  President  of  the  Bridge  &  Struc- 
tural Iron  Workers'  Union,  a  candidate  for  Congress 
in  Chicago,  111.,  was  antagonized  by  the  Socialist 
Party.  In  the  last  election  when  he  was  running 
for  re-election,  Mr.  Victor  Berger  came  from  Mil- 
waukee, neglecting  his  own  district,  in  order  to  defeat 
Frank  Buchanan  as  a  member  of  Congress.  That  is 
the  mstance  that  comes  to  me  just  now. 


*  The  "trade  union"  candidates  for  political  office  re- 
ferred to  by  Mr.  Gompers  are  not  candidates  nominated 
bjj  trade  unions  and  running  as  labor  representatives. 
They  are  candidates  of  the  Democratic  or  Republican 
parties,  who  happen  to  hold  union  cards,  but  are  pledged 
to  the  conservative  platforms  of  the  old  parties  and  take 
orders  from  those  parties.  They  are  used  by  the  shrewd 
politicians  as  decoys  for  the  thoughtless  labor  vote.  In 
the  state  assemblies  and  in  Congress  they  represent  not 
the  interests  of  the  workers  but  those  of  the  emplo-<'ers, 
who  dominate  the  old  political  parties. 

The  activities  of  such  men  tend  to  confuse,  mislead,  and 
sometimes  even  to  corrupt  the  labor  movement,  and  the 
Socialists  quite  properly  oppose  them  at  the  polls.  The 
Socialist  Party  itself  most  frequently  nominates  union  men 
for  public  office,  but  then  the  candidates  run  on  a  distinct 
labor  platform  and  are  entirely  free  from  the  domination 
of  any  capitalist  political  party. 

187 


I  am  simply  thinking  aloud.  It  is  not  just  one 
instance;  there  is  no  deviation  from  their  course.  As 
I  say,  it  is  the  difference  between  the  pretence  made 
here  and  the  practice  which  obtains  throughout. 

I  remember,  Mr.  Chairman,  one  question  that  I  did 
not  answer,  and  to  which  I  now  desire  to  address  my- 
self. That  is,  in  the  establishment  of  so-called  big 
unions,  "one  big  union"  for  labor. 

First,  we  had  the  National  Labor  Union.  It  was  the 
first  general  organization  of  labor.  Then  came  the 
Rochester  Convention  of  the  National  Labor  Union. 
And  I  can  recommend  to  every  student,  and  particu- 
larly do  I  recommend  to  Mr.  Hillquit,  the  reading  of 
the  Declaration  of  Purposes  of  the  National  Labor 
Union,  which  met  at  Rochester,  somewhere  in  the  six- 
ties, and  he  will  find  that  the  declarations  of  "imme- 
diate demands"  contained  in  the  Socialist  Party;  the 
immediate  demands  upon  which  he  questioned  me 
yesterday  were  more  fully,  amply  and  ably  set  forth 
by  the  National  Labor  Union  than  by  the  Socialist 
Party,  who  purloined  all  this  stuff  ftom  us. 


*  The  history  of  the  National  Labor  Union  is  fully 
treated  in  my  "History  of  Socialism  in  the  United  States," 
first  published  in  1903.  The  National  Labor  Union  was 
organized  in  Baltimore  in  1863  and  remained  in  existence 
until  1876.  Its  radical  and  class-conscious  declaration  ,of 
principles  was  largely  inspired  by  one  Edward  Schlegel, 
a  German  Socialist  of  the  Lassalleau  School.  Under  the 
leadership  of  William  H.  Sylvis,  one  of  the  keenest  minds 
and  noblest  characters  produced  by  the  American  labor 
movement,  the  organization  adopted  the  policy  of  inde- 
pendent working  class  action  in  politics  and  formed  the 
"National  Reform  Party,"  in  1868.  Unfortunately  Sylvis 
died  suddenly  in  1869.  The  National  Labor  Union  fell  into 
the  hands  of  weak  and  over-conservative  leaders,  who 
sought  alliances  with  old-party  politicians.  This  policy 
eventually  brought  about  the  dissolution  of  the  first  gen- 
eral organization  of  American  labor.  In  my  turn  I 
strongly  recommend  to  Mr.  Gompers  the  study  of  the 
history  and  the  fate  of  the  American  Labor  Union. 

M.  H. 

188 


The  Knights  of  Labor,  the  Western  Labor  Union, 
the  American  Labor  Union,  the  Socialist  Trade  and 
Labor  Alliance,  and  the  Industrial  Workers  of  the 
World, — I  have  no  right  to  make  any  choice  as  to 
which  is  the  better;  I  believe  the  statement  of  each 
of  the  representatives  of  the  I.  W.  W.,  when  they 
speak  of  the  other  I.  W.  W. 

And  now,  as  I  said,  Mr.  Debs  is  engaged  in  a  move- 
ment to  destroy  the  American  Federation  of  Labor; 
and  I  am  not  misquoting  him,  I  am  not  misrepresent- 
ing him — these  are  his  direct  words,  and  if  you  care, 
I  should  be  very  glad  to  submit  them  to  you. 

Chairman  Walsh  :  Please  submit  them,  because, 
Mr.  Gompers,  you  have  just  three  minutes  left. 

Mr.  Gompers:  Then  I  want  to  refer  to  this  "one 
big  union."  There  is  not  anything  that  could  be  more 
disastrous  to  the  interests  of  labor  than  the  establish- 
ment, if  it  could  be  established,  of  a  so-called  "one 
big  union."  There  are  differentiations  in  all  human 
activities.  Perhaps  no  better  comparison  can  be  cited 
than  the  military  force  on  the  battlefield  and  in  the 
preparation  for  battle,  and  the  organized  labor  move- 
ment on  the  industrial  field.  In  the  military  estab- 
lishment of  this  or  any  other  country,  each  corps  of 
men  are  doing  their  particular  work,  know  when  that 
work  is  to  be  done,  and  how  to  do  it,  and  each  works 
with  the  other  upos  the  best  accepted  understanding 
of  the  purpose  which  the  army  is  to  achieve.  The 
tactics  change,  and  they  have  changed  now  from  what 
they  were,  ten,  fifty  or  one  hundred  years  ago.  And 
so  has  the  labor  movement.  Yet  it  is  organized  scien- 
tifically upon  the  basis  that  each  is  to  do  a  particu- 
lar thing  at  the  particular  time,  and  that  each  accom.- 
plish  and  in  the  whole  accomplishes  their  great  pur- 
poses. But  now  imagine  the  infantrymen  and  the  cav- 
alrymen, the  men  on  the  horse  were  all  thrown  in  to- 
gether. What  would  occur?  The  worst  thing  which 
could  occur  to  such  an  army  would  be  to  order  a 

189 


movement  of  any  kind — to  advance  or  retreat.  The 
only  safety  for  them  would  be  to  stand  still  forever 
and  anon.  And  so  with  the  labor  movement.  The 
labor  movement  organized  in  a  trade,  in  a  calling, 
in  an  industry,  with  its  departments  such  as  have  al- 
ready been  established,  the  coalition  of  each  with  the 
other,  each  helping  the  other  to  do  the  best  thing  that 
can  be  done  for  the  one  specific  purpose  of  best  pro- 
tecting the  men  and  women  of  labor,  and  the  children 
of  our  time,  to  promote,  to  help  them  promote  their 
best  interests,  now  and  for  the  future,  neither  tread- 
ing upon  the  other,  all  trying  as  best  they  can  in  the 
light  of  their  intelligence,  in  the  light  of  their  ex- 
perience, in  the  light  of  the  plans  formulated  by  them- 
selves and  those  chosen  to  speak  for  them,  well  or- 
dered, rational,  democratically-governed,  as  such  the 
movement  of  organized  labor  of  America  will  lead  to 
the  attainment,  as  it  has  already  led  to  the  attainment 
of  the  highest  possible  conditions  of  life,  and  to  the 
conscience  that  shall  demand  as  well  as  give  to  every 
human  being  the  rights,  the  liberties  of  the  better 
civilization  to  which  we  are  constantly  tending  and 
for  which  we  are  striving. 


190 


WHY  VICTOR  BERGER  VOTED  AGAINST  THAT 
"RIDER"  TO  THE  SUNDRY  CIVIL  BILL. 


In  answer  to  the  criticism  of  Sam  Gompers,  I  have  the 
following  to  say: 

I  voted  against  the  "rider"  to  the  sundry  civil  bill  (not 
to  use  any  of  the  money  of  the  appropriation  for  the  pur- 
pose of  enforcing  the  Sherman  anti-trust  act  against  trade 
unions  and  agricultural  organizations),  because  I  con- 
sidered that  amendment  a  cowardly  and  dishonest  make- 
shift that  meant  nothing. 

And  for  the  following  reasons: 

First — This  provision  would  only  apply  to  criminal  pro- 
ceedings. But  criminal  prosecution  has  never  been  brought 
under  the  provisions  of  the  Sherman  act  against  a  trade 
union  or  a  farmer  organization  until  this  provision  was 
passed  that  was  supposed  to  protect  them.  I  said  at  the 
time  that  the  "rider"  was  a  swindle  because,  under  its 
provision  only  this  particular  fund  could  not  be  used  for 
the  criminal  prosecution  of  a  union.  But  if  the  govern- 
ment really  would  desire  the  criminal  prosecution  of  some 
union,  the  money  could  simply  be  taken  from  some  other 
fund.  The  government  has  all  kinds  of  funds  at  its  dis- 
posal. President  Wilson  has  pointed  that  out  himself 
when  later  yjn  such  a  bill  passed  under  his  administration. 
Yet  he  signed  the  sundry  civil  bill  with  the  "rider,"  so 
that  Sam  Gompers  could  say  that  the  Democratic  Party 
had  done  something  for  the  trade  unions. 

Second — While  the  sundry  civil  "rider"  apparently 
seemed  to  exempt  labor  organizations  from  prosecution, 
that  act  did  not  prevent  private  persons  or  corporations 
from,  bringing  suit  against  unions  and  union  men  to  re- 
cover damages  caused  by  strikes  and  boycotts.  There- 
fore, if  that  "rider"   had  been  in  force  at  the  time   the 

191 


Hatters'  Union  in  Danbury  was  sued  for  damages,  it  would 
not  have  given  the  workmen  any  protection  whatsoever. 

Third — The  exemption  clause — being  a  "rider"  on  an 
appropriation  bill — ceased  to  operate  as  soon  as  that  par- 
ticular appropriation  expired.  That  means  the  exemption 
could  hold  good  for  only  one  year  at  best — even  if  it  could 
accomplish  what  the  Gompers  lobby  claimed  it  would  ac- 
complish. The  whole  affair  was  simply  a  bare-faced 
attempt  to  make  the  uninformed  union  men  believe  that 
the  expensive  Gompers  lobby  in  Washington  was  doing 
something  for  them. 

The  Socialists  are  not  in  the  business  of  busting  trusts. 
And  we  are  not  asking  for  any  special  exemption  from  the 
Sherman  act 

We  oppose  all  anti-trust  legislation.  As  a  matter  of 
principle,  therefore  I,  Victor  Berger,  Socialist,  while  in 
Congress,  introduced  a  bill  based  on  class-conscious  politi- 
cal action,  providing  for  the  repeal  of  the  Sherman  act 
altogether  and  for  the  enactment  of  honest,  sensible  and 
really  progressive  legislation  in  its  place.  This  would 
benefit  the  people  in  general  and  the  working  class  in 
particular.  I  did  not  feel  that  I  was  under  any  obligation 
to  assist  Mr.  Sam  Gompers  in  his  trades  and  deals  with 
the  capitalist  parties  or  in  his  attempts  to  blindfold  trades 
union  voters. 

Victor  L.  Berger. 


The  Co-Openittve  Press.  15  Sprvee  Street.  New  York 


Univertity  of  California 

SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 

405  Hilgard  Avenue,  Los  Angeles,  CA  90024-1388 

Return  this  material  to  the  Wbnry 

from  which  it  was  borrowed. 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 

|i!iiii'Piii  i''i'' i|pin!i|i 'I  II 


A     001  073  408     5 


-1 


